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.

---

› 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]...

>>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.

John R. Copeland wrote:

> 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.

Had to dial 911 once from a Verizon phone in Lake County, Ohio, in a
neighborhood where Verizon digital coverage was spotty. The Nokia 3285 I was
using grabbed an analog signal pretty quickly (within 5-10 seconds). It was
*PROBABLY* Alltel's network, maybe AT&T's; but I'm not sure. It might have been
Verizon's, but that's unlikely given their lack of coverage in this particular
neighborhood back then.

--
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.

John R. Copeland wrote:

> 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.

Had to dial 911 once from a Verizon phone in Lake County, Ohio, in a
neighborhood where Verizon digital coverage was spotty. The Nokia 3285 I was
using grabbed an analog signal pretty quickly (within 5-10 seconds). It was
*PROBABLY* Alltel's network, maybe AT&T's; but I'm not sure. It might have been
Verizon's, but that's unlikely given their lack of coverage in this particular
neighborhood back then.

--
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.

John R. Copeland wrote:

> 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.

Had to dial 911 once from a Verizon phone in Lake County, Ohio, in a
neighborhood where Verizon digital coverage was spotty. The Nokia 3285 I was
using grabbed an analog signal pretty quickly (within 5-10 seconds). It was
*PROBABLY* Alltel's network, maybe AT&T's; but I'm not sure. It might have been
Verizon's, but that's unlikely given their lack of coverage in this particular
neighborhood back then.

--
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.

Joel Kolstad wrote:

> Look, 911 dispatching is a job like anything else. In my opinion, it's also
> a job that the average individual can perform,

While it doesn't take Superman to do the job, the job carries a huge
responsibility, and probably a lot of stress. And I don't know if the shifts
are twelve-hour shifts like the ones worked by my friend the police dispatcher,
but I suspect that they may be.

> 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.

I believe the argument here is "don't give the 911 operators additional
workload that they don't need". Who's saying the people working these jobs
didn't already know what they were getting into when they took the jobs? Not
me. Not anyone else that I can see in this thread.

> newspaper in what would appear to be an attempt to 'scold' all those bad 911
> test-dialers out there.

In some cases tests might be appropriate; if everyone tested out their brand
new phone by calling 911, it wouldn't scale very well, now would it?

--
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.

Joel Kolstad wrote:
> "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.

I would expect as much from someone who seems to want to trust his cell
phone in an emergency and yet is distrusting enough to want to test it.


> Look at the Consumer
> Reports article -- there are cell phones out there that DO NOT 'work' even
> though the COULD with somewhat better programming.

And how could a 911 test uncover this when a normal call could not? The
problem associated with failed 911 calls relates to coverage issues. If
your phone says "NO service" then guess what? Call won't go through!
There is no magic to 911 that makes a new cell tower sprout from the
ground to miraculously give you coverage when you dial it. If a regular
call cannot go through, then 911 can be expected not to work, either.

>>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.

And doing this would require more than one test. So now we've gone from
one test when you first get your phone, to a number of test in sporadic
areas where you normally travel. Where does it stop?

> I agree it's completely improper to call up 911 every
> day to perform the 'test.'

Then any test is ineffective. Bottom line: don't do it. Instead, call
your local non emergency number and ask them any questions you may have
about how the 911 system operates until you're content.

>>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).

The headline of the article was rather clear: "Testing Cell Phones Ties
up 911." Seems pretty clear to me.


> 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.

And it is not. Plain and simple. There are other ways to test your
cell phone.

> 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?


Actually, yes! But there's a huge difference. The system test, which
is standard procedure for most public service agencies using an
integrated communication system, is performed on a rigid, set schedule,
and made by ONE and ONLY one person who is officially designated to
conduct that test. Further, this test is automatically postponed when
an emergency condition requires that non emergency traffic be cleared
from the communication system in question.

The individual users of the system DO NOT test their own equipment at
random intervals, nor do they just call and "hang up" when dispatch
responds. Individual equipment failures are very frequently caught
during normal, non-emergency, routine communications traffic, and then
remedial steps are taken promptly to correct the situation. Why?
Because there is NO inherent difference from the standpoint of the end
user between how the equipment will behave in an emergency versus a non
emergency.

Sound familiar? There's plenty of routine, non emergency traffic on a
cell network. From the end user's standpoint, equipment that will work
on a normal call will ALSO likely work when they dial 911. If it does
NOT work during a normal call, then calling 911 will not magically make
the phone work again. And performance tests are ALSO being performed by
the cell carrier's designated staff to ensure that things ARE working.
A designated staff member is testing FOR you, so that you do not have to.


> I'm truly amazed at how much anti-911-test sentiment there is out there.

Maybe that should tell you something about how unreasonable your
position is.


>>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?

Yes, it does.

> For the umpteenth-time, WHEN YOU
> DIAL 911 ON A CELL PHONE IT IS *NOT* PROCESSED THE SAME WAY AS A REGULAR
> CALL.

If you insist on believing that, then there is no point in continuing to
argue with you. I just hope your incorrect assumptions don't get you
into some serious trouble later. Good luck to you.



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

Hi Isaiah,

"Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

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. 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.

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.

> Thus, it IS unreasonable to "check" the system. Such "checks" are
> unwarranted and make the system less available to those who need it.

At some level, sure, any 'test' makes the system unavailable, but on the
other hand, if the test is coordinated with the PSAP to occur during their
slow times, it should have a negligible impact of the system's performance.
I mean, the population in this country keeps growing anyway, and the 911
system certainly will grow to handle those new people, so you can't argue
that it's impossible to handle a small increase in system utilization
because Aunt Martha wants to test her one new cell phone the same day some
PXB installer is also testing 274 office phones.

> 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, 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). It's the law of diminishing returns... 1 call working makes people
99% confident everything's kosher, 10 calls is 99.9%, 100 calls is 99.99%...
it just isn't worth it.

> 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.

You're still ignoring that the main idea is to test THE PHONE and not the
cell sites, PSAPs, etc. There are fewer variables in testing it than
everything else.

>> 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.

So you're saying there's often a hold time on 911 calls then? I don't see
how this could otherwise be the case.

> 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's quite an extrapolation! Would you suggest that by testing the
batteries in a smoke detector in an upstairs corner bedroom I'd expect it to
detect a fire in a basement bedroom? Not me.

> So you DO admit that as a taxpayer, you expect a guarantee of help?

Not a guarantee, a 'best effort' as money and resources allow. There are no
guarantees at all in life, for crying out loud... all the money in the world
can't guarantee anything.

Personally, I'm generally an advocate of far smaller government than we have
now. But on the other hand, if others vote to impose tax-payer funded
programs, you can bet I'll attempt to use them in the way they were designed
if they'll benefit me.

> 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.

The problem is that there are so many government services now, it's easy for
anyone to point to an expensive taxpayer funded program that they can't
benefit from and feel pissed and therefore not want to approve new funding.
But keep in mind, over the long term taxes have been monotonically
increasing in this country for centuries, and it's not abot to stop.

One can argue endlessly over the funding level such government programs as
the military, public education, welfare, emergency services, etc... but it's
only a very small number of people (under 5%, I'd say) who outright don't
think there should be ANY funding for the military, public schools, etc.

If we lived in Ayn Rand's world it'd probably be Sprint providing emergency
services and you could take'em or leave'em as you wished and Claire would
respond to test calls. :-)

> 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.

Nah, only if they're 'concerned' about its reliabiliy. I'd guesstimate that
to be ~0.25% of all new customers... so that takes your 400,000 new calls
down to 1000 per quarter or ~11 per day.

But regardless of the numbers, you still haven't answered why you think any
increase in the number of 911 calls received can't be handled with
additional funding? I think it's a safe bet that if you can honestly say
yor local PSAP is going to have to start implementing hold times for
life-threatening emergencies, you'll get some extra funding ASAP.

> ...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.

Same facility, but answered by a computer. I trust that if a call can get
as far as being routing into a PSAP, they'll do appropriate TESTING :-)
internally to make sure 911 goes to humans and 912 goes to computers.

> 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.

See the thread about the idea for, when you call 911, getting the computer
that says, "Press 1 if this is a test calls, otherwise remain on the line
for the next operator..." -- with a 3 second delay.

>> 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?

The costs are insignificant from the point of view of having to hire
additional dispatchers to handle the increased call volume (e.g., if you
have 100 dispatchers and now you need 101). On the other hand, the cost of
1 additional dispatcher is an 'expensive enough resource' that if we can get
a machine to do it, by all means we should. Tax payers are very happy to
see government agencies say something like, "Well, we needed the ability to
handle an increased call volume, but rather than just doing 'more of the
same' and hiring more dispatchers at $100,000k/year, we worked a little
smarter and found a computer that could so some of the more menial parts of
the job for a one-time only price of $25k."

---Joel

"Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I believe the argument here is "don't give the 911 operators additional
> workload that they don't need". Who's saying the people working these jobs
> didn't already know what they were getting into when they took the jobs?
> Not me. Not anyone else that I can see in this thread.

If they're working hourly shifts, although the ratio of 'handling calls' to
'whatever else 911 dispatchers do when they're not actively handling calls'
might change, I can't see that it would really be any 'additional workload.'
Annoying, yes... additional workload... nah.

In general, scolding the people who pay your salary isn't a good idea. Even
if they do deserve it! Much better to find another job, and THEN put up
www.cellphone911testerssuck.com. :-)

> In some cases tests might be appropriate; if everyone tested out their
> brand new phone by calling 911, it wouldn't scale very well, now would it?

Yes, I just think the message can be delivered better when it's not in the
form of a whine; whining is just what gets newspapers attention these days.
:-( The report where you say: "PSAP dispatchers have noticed an alarming
increase in the number of hang-up calls over the holidays and say it's
probably due to many who received new cell phones for Xmas feeling the need
to 'test' the 911 service. The hang-up calls are frustrating for the
dispatchers and wasteful of resources, as they have to place a call-back or
dispatch a police unit if that's unsuccessful. Individuals placing 911 test
calls should never hang up on an operator. Those wishing to place a 911
test call should first call the the non-emergency numbers to explain their
concern and ask for a good test time. During the actual call, the caller
should keep the duration as short as possible while concisely explaining the
purpose of the call." ...sounds much more professional and positive, by
explaining WHY hang-up calls are a problem and providing the CORRECT
alternative.

---Joel

In article <[email protected]>, Steve Sobol
<[email protected]> wrote:

> 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,

In any ordinary circumstance with a single-line POTS service, it's a
bad idea. Setting up a PBX is about the only case I can think of where
test calls to 911 are justified. There might be a few other specific
exceptions, but the general rule stands: call 911 only for 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.

"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.

> The problem associated with failed 911 calls relates to coverage issues.
> If your phone says "NO service" then guess what? Call won't go through!

Again, wrong. My phone dispays 'No service' if it's set not to roam and
Sprint PCS coverage isn't available, yet -- if an analog carrier is
available -- a 911 call can go through.

I guarantee you this behavior is not at all obvious to most people carrying
cell phones. It doesn't seem to be to you.

> The headline of the article was rather clear: "Testing Cell Phones Ties up
> 911." Seems pretty clear to me.

'Tied up' in the context of a news article can mean anything from 'working
harder than average, but still completely as designed with no problems
whatsoever' to 'completely flooded and unable to accomplish the intended
goal.' It's not at all clear.

> The individual users of the system DO NOT test their own equipment at
> random intervals, nor do they just call and "hang up" when dispatch
> responds.

No one is advocating that people wishing to test 911 do so (1) without
coordination but calling the non-emergency number first or (2) by hanging
up!

>> I'm truly amazed at how much anti-911-test sentiment there is out there.
>
> Maybe that should tell you something about how unreasonable your position
> is.

That's a very naive opinion. Any topic like 'Should you call 911 to test
your cell phone?' is pretty subjective and complex so it's absurd to argue
that -- when the answers are boiled down to 'yes' or 'no' -- either could be
considered 'unreasonable.'

At one time the question of, 'Should there be 911 services on cell phones at
all?' would have generated quite a discussion with plenty of people saying,
'no.'

---Joel

In article <[email protected]>, Isaiah Beard
<[email protected]> wrote:

> And how could a 911 test uncover this when a normal call could not?
> The problem associated with failed 911 calls relates to coverage
> issues. If your phone says "NO service" then guess what? Call won't
> go through! There is no magic to 911 that makes a new cell tower
> sprout from the ground to miraculously give you coverage when you
> dial it. If a regular call cannot go through, then 911 can be
> expected not to work, either.

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.

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.

--
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.

Joel Kolstad wrote:
> 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 was being sarcastic. I'm saying that if your suggestion is taken to
its logical extreme--as in everyone test calling 911, even just
once--it's quite unworkable. We already pay for the implementation and
testing of PSAPs. We pay--mandate--carriers to tie into the system,
which of course includes testing. (Let's drop the landline argument, as
that system has been around for decades, and generally works well. If it
didn't, we'd certainly hear about it--and we do, almost entirely from
people who are put on hold by over-burdened PSAPs.)

Test-calling 911 from a cell phone provides nothing but a false sense of
security. And there is little need to: you CAN reasonably expect to
connect to 911 if you can make other mobile calls. You CANNOT reasonably
expect your phone to switch from digital to analog in order to do so.

While the FCC requires "Automatic A/B Roaming using an Intelligent
Retry," it only applies to AMPS phones, and IIRC dual-mode phones
operating in analog mode. Further, this rule came out (in 2000) as AMPS
was on its way out and only applied to new AMPS and dual-mode handsets
(i.e., it was essentially a meaningless ruling). There is no rule that
I'm aware of that specifies a phone must switch modes in order to place
a 911 call.

(BTW, the time required to switch modes, networks, etc., can add
significantly to a call's set-up time. During this time a caller may
just hang-up.)

You also CANNOT expect the answering PSAP to know where or who you are.
There are still, or at least recently were, PSAPs that can only receive
7-digit phone numbers (when those systems were implemented, no one
considered an emergency call coming from a phone with a different
area-code). And the number of PSAPs that have full cellular location
ability is woefully small, and those that do can only work with the
right combination of carrier and/or phone. Bottom line: expect to
explain exactly who and where you are.

I hope you can see how illogical it is to advocate test-calling 911 from
a mobile phone. If you truly have no one to call to test your new toy,
you can always call the CNA hotline (Compulsive Neurotics Anonymous).

(That was just sarcasm again. ^_^)


>
>> 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...

But you snipped the end of the paragraph where I pointed out that
911-testing a PBX is akin to a wireless provider testing their
equipment. Both systems need to connect to the PSTN, and need to be
adequately tested. But not by end users. (There are specific reasons why
each station needs testing in an MLTS-type environment--reasons that
differ markedly from a wireless phone and a directly-connected landline
phone.)


--
Mike

"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I was being sarcastic. I'm saying that if your suggestion is taken to its
> logical extreme--as in everyone test calling 911, even just once--it's
> quite unworkable.

Almost every 'good thing' taken to its extreme is unworkable if it were to
all happen to once... everyone deciding one day to get a cholesterol test,
everyone showing up for the next election, etc.

> You CANNOT reasonably expect your phone to switch from digital to analog
> in order to do so.


Ummm... why not? If I were designing a device, if that device is told to do
whatever it can to contact help regarding a life threatening situation, I'd
certainly have it exhaust all possible bands and modes before it gave up.

> There is no rule that I'm aware of that specifies a phone must switch
> modes in order to place a 911 call.

The vast majority of things cell phones do aren't mandated by FCC rules yet
but can still be 'reasonably expected' by consumers.

> You also CANNOT expect the answering PSAP to know where or who you are.

This is again a technology -- and hence money -- issue. 'Who' you are
strikes me as relatively easy to implement. 'Where' you are... well... I've
personally been surprised that someone -- the FCC? -- thought it was worth
the money to mandate that cell phones should be able to figure out where
they were. I wonder what percentage of cell phone callers to 911 are
unaware of where they are or unable to provide that information? I suspect
the added cost spread over all the cell phone subscribers such that their
cell phones end up providing location information is probabl noticeably
greater than the cost of a test 911 call. :-)

> There are still, or at least recently were, PSAPs that can only receive
> 7-digit phone numbers (when those systems were implemented, no one
> considered an emergency call coming from a phone with a different
> area-code).

I certainly don't know the details, but I can't help but feel that the
system was designed pretty poorly in the first place if the ability to
change from 7 digit to 10 digit numbers isn't pretty straightforward. I
mean, I've been writing computer software since the early '80s, and at that
time, yeah, memory was spendy and CPUs were slow and it often made sense to
hard-code a lot of restrictions in systems. By the '90s those arguments
were typically gone, and by the mid-'90s it was no longer acceptable
practice in many companies to do so.

I do realize that PSAPs run 'high reliability' equipment that takes
considerably longer to engineer/test/etc. than reglar 'off the shelf'
equipment, but still... it's (almost) 2005 here!

> Bottom line: expect to explain exactly who and where you are.

Good advice. If you're still telling people that in 5-10 years, it'll be
sad.

> (There are specific reasons why each station needs testing in an MLTS-type
> environment--reasons that differ markedly from a wireless phone and a
> directly-connected landline phone.)

I'm curious what those would be...?

---Joel

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.