The following is a disturbing story. The Newark NJ Star Ledger reported that the victim of an attack dialed 911 for help, but apparently the 911 center was unable to determine the location of the call. It was not clear whether the 911 center had the technology to do so, or [if] there was a flaw [in] it. Perhaps others more familiar with modern 911 operation can elaborate.
I wonder how many 911 centers in the US are properly equipped to identify where the calling phone is.
It seems to me that anyone in trouble should use a landline phone if at all available. Unfortunately there are few pay phones out there these days and one might have to go to a house. I think most people in a store, home, or office would call the police if a stranger banged on the door and asked them to do so (I would do so merely because someone was banging on my door). However, there are some businesses in high crime areas where the clerks do not speak English very well and stay locked in a booth.
For a motorist in trouble on a rural highway the situation is harder. Most of us do not pay attention to intermediate landmarks when we travel a road--we are looking for the distant place where we get off. That is, if we're exiting at exit #104 and we've passed #24, we're not gonna remember that we just passed #24. So, if we get into trouble and call for help, we'll have little idea of where we are.
[Comments requested. Public replies, please. Thanks.]
***** Moderator's Note *****
The person who made the call was already inside a building: he was a priest inside a church rectory. He was attacked by a church employee, apparently while making his 911 call. It's very unlikely that a faster response would have helped him, since the newspaper article alluded to "32 stab wounds".
The problem is not caused by cell phones: it's caused by the unrealistic expectations we have regarding what is and is not possible in public-safety responses. The TV-viewing public has adopted a fantasy where it expects a telephone to transform into a trained and well-equiped and well-supported public safety professional in the blink of an eye, all the while forgetting the basic imperatives of distance and time. Municipal managers have endorsed electronics as the "magic bullet" which cures all ills, and have placed poorly trained call-takers in positions where experienced police officers and/or firefighters would be more effective. The results have been foreseeable.
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:39:21 -0700, Telecom Digest Moderator wrote: > The problem is not caused by cell phones: it's caused by the > unrealistic expectations we have regarding what is and is not > possible in public-safety responses. The TV-viewing public has > adopted a fantasy where it expects a telephone to transform into a > trained and well-equiped and well-supported public safety > professional in the blink of an eye, all the while forgetting the > basic imperatives of distance and time. Municipal managers have > endorsed electronics as the "magic bullet" which cures all ills, and > have placed poorly trained call-takers in positions where > experienced police officers and/or firefighters would be more > effective. The results have been foreseeable.
A similar false expectation is being built up where I live after the big bush fires earlier this year resulted in so many deaths. A new system of SMS notifications is being implemented based on the *BILLING* address of the mobile service! Yep, you many not be anywhere near a possible disaster (or you might be right in the middle of it) but you will only get a warning message if the phone's billing address matches the region....
There are so many obvious flaws in any system relying on technology to work during a major catastrophe that you really don't want to have people believing that they can rely on it, but we always seem to keep heading down that path.
There is a Royal Commission into the bushfires still in progress, and we see regular testimony on the TV news of people complaining about delays when they tried to ring the (horrendously overloaded) emergency services during the event - and others basically demanding that these resources should be staffed 24/7 with the ability to service a major disaster (but they never seem to say that they are willing to pay for such an expensive system).
It's the mentality that some people just seem to expect their own personal police officer/ambulance/fire truck just waiting for them at the other end of a (100% reliable) phone call.
-- Regards, David.
David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have.
> The following is a disturbing story. The Newark NJ Star Ledger > reported that the victim of an attack dialed 911 for help, but > apparently the 911 center was unable to determine the location of the > call. It was not clear whether the 911 center had the technology to > do so, or [if] there was a flaw [in] it. Perhaps others more familiar > with modern 911 operation can elaborate.
> The problem is not caused by cell phones: it's caused by the > unrealistic expectations we have regarding what is and is not possible > in public-safety responses. The TV-viewing public has adopted a > fantasy where it expects a telephone to transform into a trained and > well-equiped and well-supported public safety professional in the > blink of an eye, all the while forgetting the basic imperatives of > distance and time. Municipal managers have endorsed electronics as the > "magic bullet" which cures all ills, and have placed poorly trained > call-takers in positions where experienced police officers and/or > firefighters would be more effective. The results have been > foreseeable.
> Bill Horne > Moderator
Notice that at least one of the quoted law makers does understand the biggest part of the problem, which is the diversion of 911 fees to uses that have nothing to do with handling emergency telephone calls well.
It is so much easier for a politician to pay for the PSAP staffing with the [911] fees then it is for them to do that out of the general fund and use the fees to pay for new equipment and software. If they do the first one they can save the library hours that people are screaming about; if they do the latter they have to bear up under the attacks from the people who wanted them to "cut the fat, not their macrame class." That last is an actual quote from a call I answered as a relief dispatcher in Davis California shortly after proposition Thirteen passed by an overwhelming margin. To that caller the closing of the recreation center for nights and weekends was a travesty and not a foreseeable result of her voting to cut the towns property tax revenue in half.
|
