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

"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> But based on their laissez-faire attitude about calling 911, I'd guess
> they average less than a dozen true emergency calls per day.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many 911 calls some large
metropolitan area such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, or New York receives?
And what the breakdown is of 'true' emergency calls, 'my cat is stuck in a
tree'/'I have a flat tire' calls, etc.?

---Joel

---

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

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:29:49 -0800, "Joel Kolstad"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"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.

That wouldn't be small-town Palestine, Texas, would it?

>
>---Joel
>

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:29:49 -0800, "Joel Kolstad"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"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.

That wouldn't be small-town Palestine, Texas, would it?

>
>---Joel
>

Joel Kolstad wrote:

>>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.

Define that. What do you consieder to be "most necessary." If you're
talking about where an emergency is most likely to occur, than that's
rather hard to predict. Part of the risk and danger behind an emergency
is that time and place cannot be predicted.

If you want to argue that the "most necessary" conditions are where the
phone will be used in day to day routine travel, then I still don't see
how making a routine non-911 phone call is not a sufficient test.
Routine routes are likely to be ones well covered by a subscriber's
carrier; otherwise, that customer wouldn't be subscribing to a carrier
that doesn't cover the area well, no? So you can't really test roaming,
you can't really test how the phone will find another network to place
this 911 call, and you can't really make the phone do anything it
wouldn't normally do outside of that routine coverage area under routine
conditions.

> 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.

Based on the conditions you're outlining, you have failed to make a case
that a person will have any assurance that would have otherwise been
afforded through routine use of the phone. And if a person does test
their phone in ideal conditions then ventures away from those ideal
conditions, this sense of assurance you profess could be a false one.
Kinda like testing a fire extinguisher in a non-emergency, and being
assured it'll work... only to find that the same fire extinguisher is
now empty in a time when you might really need it.

>>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 think it does, and in fact I think it smacks of a type of paranois
where you're attempting to instill the same fear in other people. Your
cell phone might no protect you *GASP!* So let's all call 911 and see
if the cell phone will really do the job. Let's just hope someone with
a real emergency will actually be able to get through, seeing as how
we're busy testing this system and all. If people's lives weren't at
stake, it would actually be kind of funny how your proposal makes a
resource less available, when your stated goal is to make sure it's
available as possible.


> 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.

Having Joe Blow fire up his cell phone to make a false 911 call doesn't
constitute "better testing." Better testing, in my mind, amounts to
trained, designated people who have experience in such tests, and the
resources to test the worst possible scenarios, track a variety of
possible failure modes, AND to find and trace those failure modes so
that they can be corrected in short order.

And end-user "test" has only two possible modes: it worked or it didn't.
By the time the end user hangs up, he or she has no data on why the
test may have failed, where things may have gone wrong (maybe a misroute
at a switch, a faulty cell sector, the cell is breathing due to a lack
of capacity, the dispatch center is having a system failure, or maybe it
was user error, etc), or how to fix the point of failure. And that
doesnt' bode well even if he or she reports that the call didn't work to
the cell service provider, who has no data to go on other than
"something went wrong, somewhere. Maybe."

Further, the end user probably has little to no coordination with the
PSAP or cell provider on this test. He or she doesn't know whether no
one else is testing or whether 900 other users decided to test at the
same time. He doesn't know if it's a quiet night, or if a 5-alarm
industrial fire with hazmat, numerous injuries and suspicions of arson
with an armed and fleeing suspect is tying up the response channels, and
now might not be a good time to run his little test.

And yet you're going to sit here and tell me that Joe Blow testing his
cell phone whenever the hell he feels like it, just for grins, amounts
to "better testing?"

> 'Better testing' only translate to 'flood' in your mind,
> not in mine.

No, it translates to a potential for a number of people to tie up
resources for NOTHING. The brand of "Testing" you seek provides no
verifiable or traceable results and offer little to no benefit, yet will
make dispatch centers busier. For nothing!

> As other people have confirmed, the cell phone display stating 'no service'
> does NOT indicate a 911 call will fail.

Nor does it mean that any test will assure you that despite "no
service," your phone is still going to manage to find a signal somehow,
somewhere. It's possible, and a great thing if it works, but should NOT
be depended on. The Conntinental US does NOT have 100% blanket coverage
of even the most basic analog service. And some phones STILL can't be
relied on to use an alternate network. This is especially true if you
have an iden phone, a GSM only phone, or a CDMA only phone, which are
becoming more and more popular now as the sunset date for analog approaches.

> By the same token, the cell phone
> display stating that you DO have services doesn't indicate a 911 call will
> go through either,

Agreed! And neither does a test done who-knows-when, who-knows-where.

>>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.'

We already did the math on that. Once per new cell phone activation
still amounts to tens of thousands of calls per day, on only one cell
carrier (who by the way isn't the largest). And while not everyone may
be concerned, it's people like you who are driving people into a false
need for concern AND a false sense of security.

>>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.

Please. I represent no company, and have no agenda except that of calm
and common sense.

You don't strike me for one second to be in the same league as Erin
Brockovich, and you most certainly are no Ralph Nader, so don't hide
behind this banner of what is righteous and moral. There is a fine line
between whistleblower and a fearmonger who has no hard facts and claims
to have expertise in a field he has never demonstrated any knowledge in
whatsoever. And you sir, are very much the latter.



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

Notan wrote:


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


Exactly my point.

--
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:
>>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.

Right! And then you spend dozens of posts talking about how people
should be lulled into a false sense of security by "Testing" their
phones with a useless precedure that fails to test conditions where
points of failure can be exposed. That disgusts me.


>>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.

Yes it should! Tell me Joel, so I test call 911 from my landline, just
so I can be assured that it'll work later on? Since you know so much
about these things...


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

Steve Sobol Wrote:
> 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,-- Hence, I don't give
> 911
> dispatchers any special 'pass' on getting to complain about what are
> predictable downsides of their jobs.-
>
> As a 26-year 9-1-1 operator, I'll opine that people in this job have no
> "pass", nor do we expect one. I would absolutely disagree that "it's
> also a job that the average individual can perform." Not even close.
> Here's a 1999 LA Times item; the statistics may vary a bit over time,
> but they're pretty consistent.. I'm certainly not looking for sympathy
> or a "pass", just sharing some reality, which the reporter covered
> pretty well.
>
> L.A. Times
> 911's Own Crisis: Keeping Dispatchers
> The job's unusual, extreme demands leave seats empty.
> March 1, 1999
>
> Susi Thayer closed her eyes tight and exhaled with defeat. The head of
> Irvine's 911 emergency phone system learned Tuesday morning that her
> newest hire quit after only one day on the job.
>
> It had taken Thayer six months and several thousand dollars to recruit
> the woman. There was the advertisement for the position, a written
> test, an in-depth medical exam, psychological testing, and polygraph
> and background checks--which all had to be completed before the woman
> ever took a seat in front of the switchboard to begin training.
>
> "Now we are back to square one," sighed Thayer. Keeping the phones
> staffed on the front line of America's emergency response system is a
> chronic struggle, not only in cities like Los Angeles and Detroit but
> also in rural areas and suburbs.
>
> In Orange County, for example, which boasts some of the safest areas in
> America, nearly every dispatch center is understaffed, despite flush
> budgets and aggressive recruiting.
>
> It is impossible to say if the constant churn of 911 operators
> compromises public safety. No one keeps such statistics. But the
> turnover troubles many who say experienced dispatchers can make the
> difference between life and death in a job where every second counts.
>
> "You are taking calls from people at the worst moments in their lives,"
> said Gary Allen, editor of the Berkeley-based trade magazine Dispatch
> Monthly, whose pages often address the stresses dispatchers face. "It
> is important to have people who know what they are doing."
>
> For those who have never set foot in a dispatch center, the staffing
> problems might seem puzzling. After all, a dispatcher's work is far
> less dangerous than the job done by the police officers they send out
> on emergency calls. Dispatchers don't dodge bullets, but people who do
> the job say they face a different kind of danger--one more mental than
> physical.
>
> Nationwide, dispatchers juggle about 250,000 phone calls for assistance
> each day, in addition to handling radio traffic from their own law
> enforcement officers. The widespread use of cell phones alone has
> dramatically boosted the number of calls made to 911 operators from
> motorists reporting everything from suspicious activity to a car broken
> down by the side of the road.
>
> Staying alert can be challenging, in part because as much as 80% of all
> 911 calls are not emergencies. Add to this additional pressures not
> found in other civilian jobs: An operators' every conversation is
> recorded, to be replayed in case of a complaint that a response was
> botched.
>
> So is it any wonder that law enforcement agencies nationwide say they
> can't find people who will do the job, even though starting pay is
> often two to three times the minimum wage and no college degree is
> required?
>
> Dispatchers don't think so. Even those who love the work say there
> almost always comes a moment when the weight of the job is too much.
> They stand at the edge of their emotions and decide if they can do it
> another day.
>
> In Huntington Beach, which ranks as one of the safest cities in the
> United States, six out of 10 who begin training eventually quit or are
> dismissed; it's the same with half the recruits in Santa Ana. In Los
> Angeles, the average dropout rate for first-year dispatchers is 48%.
> Statewide, 40% of new hires never finish the six-month to yearlong
> training program.
>
> "It is hard to find people with the will to do the job," Thayer said.
> "You could have a potential suicide on one line and someone on the
> other line reporting a stray dog, and the person reporting the stray
> dog is more hysterical." In the meantime, dispatchers pick up overtime
> shifts to handle demands for emergency response, which in Anaheim last
> year totaled more than 171,000 calls from the public.
>
> Recruiting employees who can stick with it has proved elusive for law
> enforcement.
>
> In 1991, the California Police Officers Standards and Training
> Commission identified more than 700 tasks a dispatcher must perform and
> the skills needed to get them done, ranging from prioritizing all
> requests for help to drawing out critical information from a frantic
> caller.
>
> The three-hour test required by many hiring agencies in the state weeds
> out those likely to fail. But it is far from foolproof. Agencies also
> have resorted to psychological profiling to reduce the countless hours
> and hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted each year on unsuccessful
> candidates.
>
> The dropout rate places the burden squarely on the shoulders of the
> dispatchers who stay. The result, say those who have worked in the
> field for years, is tired and overworked dispatchers doing a job that
> requires speed and precision.
>
> "It's a never-ending cycle," Allen said. "The burnout rate just gets
> higher."
>
> Marie Black knows how bad it can get. Ten years ago, on the worst day
> in her career, the dispatcher for LAPD yanked off her headset and sat
> waiting in her cubicle for someone, anyone, to say something to her.
> She was looking for the slightest excuse to quit. In half an hour's
> time, Black had taken three terrible calls back to back.
>
> The first came from a psychologist who went to a suicidal patient's
> home and found him dead, shot in the head. The second was from weeping
> parents, their words coming out in gulps. Their 22-year-old son
> overdosed. They had gone to ask him to turn his music down and found
> him dead, a needle still in his arm.
>
> The third call was from a woman who opened the door to the garage and
> found her husband hanging from a rope. Black could hear the distraught
> woman pleading with her husband to be alive: "Honey, are you OK?"
>
> And it was this last call that did Black in. In her mind she could see
> the woman trying too late to save her husband, trying to lift him in her
> arms. She could picture it and the image made her heart sink.
>
> "You've got to have that something," the 12-year dispatching veteran
> said of that day. "It's a feeling in the pit of your stomach, whether
> it's fear or concern or adrenaline or whatever, you need it there to do
> the job. When you lose it, you're done."
>
> Eric Gruver, a psychologist who helps Orange County's law enforcement
> agencies choose candidates to hire, agrees.
>
> And it's this hard-to-define trait for which he searches. It's a
> quality that is difficult to judge except over time, and after
> dispatchers have been thrust into a crisis that can't be simulated by
> any testing model.
>
> Among the stresses unique to the work, he says, is the fact that
> dispatchers are "forgotten people." "Officers get accolades, but no
> one remembers the work a dispatcher does," Gruver said. "You have to be
> someone who finds a way to get satisfaction from the job on your own.
> But how many people can you have die at the end of a call? How many
> people can call up and unleash their frustrations of life on you before
> you are affected?"
>
> Even an ordinary day can be a balancing act. Dispatchers need to have a
> passion for the work. But if they took every call to heart, they
> wouldn't be able to keep picking up the phone. Finding the balance is
> easier said than done.
>
> Cristine Gaiennie still can't forget the little boy's voice. "Daddy
> has a gun, he told her. He's going to shoot Mommy. He's going to kill
> himself. Can I help my little brother? I need to get him out of that
> room."
>
> "He couldn't have been more than 6 or 7," recalls the eight-year
> veteran of Irvine's police dispatch unit.
>
> The call made three years ago still haunts Gaiennie, who originally had
> plans to enter the police academy, but stayed in dispatching because she
> felt she could be more useful there. "I can't imagine doing anything
> else," she said. She refuses to let anything from the outside affect
> her job. A bad day, a bad mood, could cost a life, she said.
>
> Almost anyone who does the job can recall the chilling 911 tapes made
> public in the wake of the North Hollywood shootout between bank robbers
> and Los Angeles police. They identify with the dispatcher heard
> desperately urging a wounded officer to hang on.
>
> And the battle isn't only in coping with the crises or the numbing
> lulls in between. It's also against frivolous or prank calls. Too many
> in a row and your sense of urgency can be dulled. Kids call from pay
> phones and yell dirty words. Neighbors call to complain about noise.
> One elderly woman regularly called Irvine dispatchers asking for help
> paying her bills. And then there are the hang-ups, often kids fooling
> around or 411 misdials. But each one must be returned. You never know
> when it may be a real emergency.
>
> In Irvine, Thayer said she is already starting the process of hiring a
> replacement for the woman who decided one day on the job was all she
> could take. Thayer said it has happened so many times before,
> resignation has set in.
>
> There was a time when Thayer thought she could predict which candidates
> would excel, only to watch them wash out. She has had doubts about
> others, who turned out to have distinguished careers.
>
> "I've learned that I just never know," she said. "But usually they last
> longer than a day."


--
Radio Lady

Radio Lady wrote:
> Steve Sobol Wrote:

No, I didn't. And you didn't add anything to this - what was the point of
reposting it?

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:42:24 -0800, Steve Sobol wrote:

> Radio Lady wrote:
>> Steve Sobol Wrote:
>
> No, I didn't. And you didn't add anything to this - what was the point of
> reposting it?

Obviously he wrote "> Steve Sobol Wrote:"