Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Not that anyone who reads this newsgroup would do such a thing...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article. [...] AGU9D1.DTL

"Our phones start exploding with hang-ups (on Christmas)," said CHP Sgt.
Wayne Ziese of the Golden Gate division, which patrols the nine-county
Bay Area and dispatches its cars and motorcycles from division
headquarters in Vallejo. "The operator says, 'You've reached the CHP,
and what is your emergency?' Then 'click.' Or they'll say, 'I'm just
testing out my cell phone. ' "

It's the kind of thing dispatchers are not happy about.

Measuring her words as evenly as she can, Diane Chupinski, a 13-year
veteran CHP dispatcher who now supervises other dispatchers in the
Vallejo center, offers this: "I can say it is not clear to me why people
think 911 needs to be tested. If you want to know if your phone works,
call your friend and say, 'Guess what I got for Christmas.' "

Chupinski adds, "Here is my wish for Christmas: People should program
their seven-digit local police emergency number into their cell phones."
(That number can normally be found in your phone book.)

--
Frank Harris in San Francisco with an A680

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Frank Harris" <frankbhX@XcompuserveX.com> wrote in message
news:cqhhcf$6fr$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> It's the kind of thing dispatchers are not happy about.

They may not be, and I'd agree that it's unreasonable to ever simply hang up
on a 911 dispatcher, but testing for 911 service from a cell phone in
general strikes me as an entirely reasonable thing to do. Although doing so
on Christmas day or other days that can reasonably be expected to be 'busy'
isn't friendly either.

> Measuring her words as evenly as she can, Diane Chupinski, a 13-year
> veteran CHP dispatcher who now supervises other dispatchers in the Vallejo
> center, offers this: "I can say it is not clear to me why people think 911
> needs to be tested. If you want to know if your phone works, call your
> friend and say, 'Guess what I got for Christmas.' "

This shows her naievete. Cell phones handle 911 calls in different enough
ways from regular calls that, while being able to call your friend to say
'hello' is a very good indication of 911 being handled properly, it's not a
sure thing.

A couple? of years ago Consumer Reports had an article on cell phones
specifically focusing on how successful they were in their ability to reach
911 services under various conditions. For example, there were cases where
a phone _could_ have reached 911 by switching over to the old AMPS system
but didn't bother because the phone was set to PCS or some other digital
system only for regular calls and a digital carrier wasn't present. Knowing
how one's phone behaves in such situations is quite useful, and not
something routinely found in instruction manuals.

> Chupinski adds, "Here is my wish for Christmas: People should program
> their seven-digit local police emergency number into their cell phones."

Certainly not a bad idea, but the whole point of 911 is that it's a
universal number, and a large point of cell phones is their mobility which
means you may well not be in your local area when an emergency strikes.

In my opinion, the article sounds like some reporter went fishing for a
bunch of low quality 911 dispatchers who were more than happy to bitch about
some of the less-than-pleasant aspects of their jobs.

---Joel Kolstad

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Joel Kolstad wrote:
>
> <snip>

Bottom line... Are you suggesting that it's a good idea for
everyone to test "911?"

Notan

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:41CE41D6.D9F946A2@ddress.com...
> Joel Kolstad wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>
> Bottom line... Are you suggesting that it's a good idea for
> everyone to test "911?"

I'm suggesting that anyone who is at all 'concerned' about their phone's
ability to contact 911 in an emergency should, at a reasonable time, test
it. Some people are just 'concerned' by their nature, and others have more
technical reasons to be -- such as the case where, e.g., you spend a lot of
time driving through analog-only coverage but keep the phone set to
'digital' roaming only.

I would be surprised if anyone a few levels higher up than a dispatcher
would go on record discouraging people from testing 911 (with a cell phone
or a landline) if they have any concern about their equipment's ability to
reliably connect -- but I'd expect they'd give guidelines such as good times
to call. I don't know which phone it is any more, but I've purchased phones
where they included such guidelines (particularly including the point about
not hanging up on 911 -- this typically results in at least in a callback,
and if that fails, a police dispatch to check out the 'problem...').

---Joel

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Joel Kolstad wrote:
>
> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> news:41CE41D6.D9F946A2@ddress.com...
> > Joel Kolstad wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >
> > Bottom line... Are you suggesting that it's a good idea for
> > everyone to test "911?"
>
> I'm suggesting that anyone who is at all 'concerned' about their phone's
> ability to contact 911 in an emergency should, at a reasonable time, test
> it. Some people are just 'concerned' by their nature, and others have more
> technical reasons to be -- such as the case where, e.g., you spend a lot of
> time driving through analog-only coverage but keep the phone set to
> 'digital' roaming only.
>
> I would be surprised if anyone a few levels higher up than a dispatcher
> would go on record discouraging people from testing 911 (with a cell phone
> or a landline) if they have any concern about their equipment's ability to
> reliably connect -- but I'd expect they'd give guidelines such as good times
> to call. I don't know which phone it is any more, but I've purchased phones
> where they included such guidelines (particularly including the point about
> not hanging up on 911 -- this typically results in at least in a callback,
> and if that fails, a police dispatch to check out the 'problem...').

While it's just an opinion, I can't believe that *anyone,* in the 911
system, would encourage *any* type of testing.

I'd like to see some type of "912" test number that people could call.
similar in all respects to 911... Rather than going to a live operator,
the call would go to a pre-recorded confirmation line.

Notan

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Frank Harris wrote:
> "Our phones start exploding with hang-ups (on Christmas)," said CHP Sgt.
> Wayne Ziese of the Golden Gate division, which patrols the nine-county
> Bay Area and dispatches its cars and motorcycles from division
> headquarters in Vallejo. "The operator says, 'You've reached the CHP,
> and what is your emergency?' Then 'click.' Or they'll say, 'I'm just
> testing out my cell phone. ' "

You know, I really hope the CHP gets E-911 Phase II rolling out soon.
It would be interesting to see what happens when some of these "test
calls" end up in a visit by the police to wherever the cell phone is
located to enforce those prank 911 call laws.

People who do this should automatically have their cell phones
confiscated. They've just proven they can't handle the responsibility.



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

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Joel Kolstad wrote:

> They may not be, and I'd agree that it's unreasonable to ever simply hang up
> on a 911 dispatcher, but testing for 911 service from a cell phone in
> general strikes me as an entirely reasonable thing to do.

Reasonable in what way? The FCC has mandated that it MUST work. It
isn't something that's individual to any one cell phone. Your "testing"
the service doesn't activate it; it's already there as a blanket mandate
that all cell phones capable of receiving a signal, whether activated or
not, MUST be able to call 911.

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.


>>Measuring her words as evenly as she can, Diane Chupinski, a 13-year
>>veteran CHP dispatcher who now supervises other dispatchers in the Vallejo
>>center, offers this: "I can say it is not clear to me why people think 911
>>needs to be tested. If you want to know if your phone works, call your
>>friend and say, 'Guess what I got for Christmas.' "
>
> This shows her naievete. Cell phones handle 911 calls in different enough
> ways from regular calls that, while being able to call your friend to say
> 'hello' is a very good indication of 911 being handled properly, it's not a
> sure thing.

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? You
have no emergency to report, so it's not as if you're making the
dispatcher go through the entire process with you. In fact, you'll
learn a lot a less from calling 911 and hanging up or saying "just
testing" than if you use that same cell phone to call your local police
department's NON emrgency number and kindly ask "if I call 911 from my
cell phone, what can I expect?"

> Knowing
> how one's phone behaves in such situations is quite useful, and not
> something routinely found in instruction manuals.

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. I don't have
to bother calling 911 to know that my chances of reaching a PSAP outside
when I'm outside of my coverage area are drastically reduced.


>>Chupinski adds, "Here is my wish for Christmas: People should program
>>their seven-digit local police emergency number into their cell phones."
>
> Certainly not a bad idea, but the whole point of 911 is that it's a
> universal number,

I'm sure that if you're in the middle of a true emergency and find that
you have to be put on hold when you dial 911, you'll realize how very
wrong you are. 911 is NOT a "universal" number. It's a number
specifically designed to be called only when you are absolutely certain
that a true, immediate emergency exists and that life or property (and
some states even omit "property" ) is directly threatened. It is not
meant as a test line, nor is it meant to be called to get the
dispatcher's opinion of whether something is an emergency.


> and a large point of cell phones is their mobility which
> means you may well not be in your local area when an emergency strikes.

You also misunderstand the current intent of cell phones. Ask any
wireless carrier whether they will guarantee that a cell phone let you
reach authorities in an emergency, and all of them will invariably say
that NO, it is a not guarantee. A cell phone is not a public utility.
It is still very much an item of convenience, and subject to service
availability, and it will be so for quite sometime.

People need to realize that while cell phones are useful tools in an
emergency when they work, they are absolutely not a guarantee of
emergency help. Somehow people managed to get along prior to the 1980s
when cellular networks were commonplace, and people need to realize that
this technology still isn't perfect and you might find yourself in a
situation where you will still need to cope however people did in the
pre-mobile era of society.


> In my opinion, the article sounds like some reporter went fishing for a
> bunch of low quality 911 dispatchers who were more than happy to bitch about
> some of the less-than-pleasant aspects of their jobs.

I sincerely hope sir, that you never find yourself in an emergency,
because I pity the "low quality" 911 dispatcher who will deal with the
likes of you.

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

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Notan wrote:

>
> While it's just an opinion, I can't believe that *anyone,* in the 911
> system, would encourage *any* type of testing.
>
> I'd like to see some type of "912" test number that people could call.
> similar in all respects to 911... Rather than going to a live operator,
> the call would go to a pre-recorded confirmation line.

You know, there really doesn't need to be even that. When you get down
to it, there is really nothing on the cell phone's end that is any
different in how the call is made to 911 than if you called Aunt Martha
to say hello. It must still find a signal; it must still be able to
interface with a wireless network using whatever protocols it is
compatible with; it must still be able to connect to the MTSO and pass
through call information. The rest of the call is routed by the PSTN
based on local and national 911 routing guidelines, just like a
landline. 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 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. 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): "a
government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public
services, such as police protection to any particular individual citizen." ).

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.



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

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Tinman wrote:

>>I'm suggesting that anyone who is at all 'concerned' about their
>>phone's ability to contact 911 in an emergency should, at a
>>reasonable time, test it.
>
> Why stop there? Let's all test the fire alarms in public and private
> office buildings. I mean, we need to be sure they work, right? Oops, I
> forgot about private homes. We'll all need to call the local FDs to
> "test" their response time. Never can be too safe, right? Heck, while
> we're at it, let's test those EMS workers too.

If you're planning on testing 911, from a landline or otherwise, you're
supposed to call beforehand and let them know, AFAIK. It's a pretty standard
thing to do when, for example, you're setting up a PBX in an office...

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steve Sobol wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>>> I'm suggesting that anyone who is at all 'concerned' about their
>>> phone's ability to contact 911 in an emergency should, at a
>>> reasonable time, test it.
>>
>> Why stop there? Let's all test the fire alarms in public and private
>> office buildings. I mean, we need to be sure they work, right? Oops,
>> I forgot about private homes. We'll all need to call the local FDs to
>> "test" their response time. Never can be too safe, right? Heck, while
>> we're at it, let's test those EMS workers too.
>
> If you're planning on testing 911, from a landline or otherwise,
> you're supposed to call beforehand and let them know, AFAIK.

Well apparently you *don't* know...

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Tinman wrote:

> Well apparently you *don't* know...

Wow, what an intelligent retort. Perhaps you should ask over in
comp.dcom.telecom if what I'm saying is correct. I could be mistaken.


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steve Sobol wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>> Well apparently you *don't* know...
>
> Wow, what an intelligent retort. Perhaps you should ask over in
> comp.dcom.telecom if what I'm saying is correct. I could be mistaken.

I don't need to ask. Call your local PD (NOT via 911) and ask them what
they think about citizens test-calling 911. (You know, the very subject
this thread is about.)

Do try and keep up.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Tinman wrote:

> I don't need to ask. Call your local PD (NOT via 911) and ask them what
> they think about citizens test-calling 911. (You know, the very subject
> this thread is about.)

*shrug* Fine, will do that when I have time in the next couple days.

> Do try and keep up.

Sorry, you have to use words with three or fewer letters in order for me to
keep up. "Keep" is four letters long.


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.