Vonage Selects TCS For VoIP E911 Service

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
41

[...]

Given that we're talking about cell phones, it seems completely
likely. Cell phones present the dialed number as a block, so there's
no ambiguity between 911 and 911XXXXX. I don't know whether UK cell
carriers map 911 to 112, but there's no technical reason they can't
do so.

If people expect 911 to work on mobile phones, they will also expect
it to work on the PSTN.

<rant> And why should the UK change its numbering system just because
a few dumb Yanks who can't be bothered to learn local customs? Does
999 get through to the emergency services in the NANP? Does 112 work
on non-GSM phones? How about Australia's 000? </rant>

I agree that for VoIP using normal phones through adapters, 911 in
the UK won't work.

ATAs usually collect digits to send as a block as well, either with
the user explicitly dialling # after the number, or implicitly after a
timeout. At least that's what I see with Cisco ATA-186, 7940 and 7960
and the Sipura 2000 I've tested.

42

It would be nice if everyone in the world could agree on a single "emergency services" number, which would work when dialed from all types of communication devices. However, that's a standards issue that would need to be addressed by the ITU.

  Until then, we've got what we've got, and I don't see much in the way of operational relevancy here.

43

In most of Europe dialing 112 on any phone on a public phone network, mobile
or fixed, should get you an emergency operator.

I think in some parts of Europe it may still get you the police, instead of a
choice of emergency services, but in most cases that is sufficient, and a
damn site better than wondering what the local emergency number is, or trying
to decipher the explanation on a public phone box.

Whether you'll be able to make yourself understood once connected is another
issue entirely.

My only concern is the UK government persists in teaching the old (local) 999
number, to avoid confusing the terminally stupid who can't cope with the idea
of remembering two emergency numbers. As a result UK citizens end up either
not knowing what to dial when abroad, or having to remember which country
they are in when dialing for help.

44

This makes no sense at all. Here in the Netherlands we changed from local numbers (which were great, dial 222333 and I'd actually get a The Hague fireman on the line, but finding the phone book first when attending an out of town emergency is of course less than desirable) to a country-wide number (06-11) in the 1990s, and then to the European number 112 (which I'm sure is costing lives as we speak: you first have to hold for a stupid OPERATOR whom you have to TELL what service and where you want to talk to and then AGAIN hold for the actual service). They knew 112 was in the works when they changed to 06-11, BTW.

Anyway, my point being: the current numbers have been drilled into our subconscious very effectively. Throwing that away woulde be an amazing waste of time and money.

What should happen instead is that everywhere, the most common ones are made to work as additional CNAMEs for the local one.

This whole "single number" hype should end anyway. 10 years ago the Dutch phone company had at least five different numbers: for b2c sales, b2b sales, outages, billing and so on. Now they only have one number but you have to waste time navigating through a "voice response" maze. That's not what I call progress.

Oh yes: </rant>

45

Simon Waters wrote:

Does 112 work on non-GSM phones?

In most of Europe dialing 112 on any phone on a public phone network, mobile or fixed, should get you an emergency operator.

I think in some parts of Europe it may still get you the police, instead of a choice of emergency services, but in most cases that is sufficient, and a damn site better than wondering what the local emergency number is, or trying to decipher the explanation on a public phone box.

Well, in germany it gets you the firebrigade / pompiers or the red cross.
The police is listening on 110.

But dont try that when you are mobile. If you happen to be in "death valley"
where you can reach only the wrong centre then they will hang up and dont even
answer next time you try. That is at least what happened to me. I know people
who had the same experience.

That is why Karin is learning for a hamradio license. Even CB-radio is more
relyable.

46

What should happen instead is that everywhere, the most common ones are
made to work as additional CNAMEs for the local one.

  That doesn't work. As has already been demonstrated, there are numbers elsewhere in the world with 999 as their area code or local prefix, and I'm sure the same is true for 112, 911, and all the various other "emergency services" numbers. It's simply not possible to take all the various local numbers around the world and make them work globally as CNAMEs for whatever local area you may be in.

  There's no sense in hoping for something that you know is completely impossible. It's a waste of your time and effort, and mine.

  What might possibly be achievable is to take a single number that is universally available without conflicts, or where conflicts would be least painful to resolve, and make that work everywhere -- being made the equivalent of a CNAME for whatever the appropriate local area you may be in.

This whole "single number" hype should end anyway. 10 years ago the
Dutch phone company had at least five different numbers: for b2c sales,
b2b sales, outages, billing and so on. Now they only have one number but
you have to waste time navigating through a "voice response" maze. That's
not what I call progress.

  That's a failure in their IVR design, yes. However, just because you can create badly designed IVR systems does not necessarily mean that all IVR systems should be outlawed. Just because you can create badly designed web pages doesn't mean that all web pages should be outlawed.

  Likewise with emergency services numbers. They need to be well-designed, yes. But they needn't be outlawed unversally just because some people are incompetent and cannot create one that works properly.

  However, as I previously alluded to, these are long-term standards issues that would first need to be worked out with the ITU before there could possibly be any operational issues to be resolved.

47

If they can't hand you off to a more appropriate center, then as far as I'm concerned they are committing manslaughter, and they should be prosecuted as such. If they are capable of handing you off but refuse to do so, then it's murder.

  However, I don't see that this is something we can resolve through the NANOG mailing list.

48

What should happen instead is that everywhere, the most common ones are
made to work as additional CNAMEs for the local one.

    That doesn't work. As has already been demonstrated, there are numbers elsewhere in the world with 999 as their area code or local prefix, and I'm sure the same is true for 112, 911, and all the various other "emergency services" numbers.

As someone else already pointed out: systems like ISDN, GSM and VoIP look at the whole number, not at the individual digits as they come in, like POTS. So 911 and 9114567 are different numbers.

It's simply not possible to take all the various local numbers around the world and make them work globally as CNAMEs for whatever local area you may be in.

That may be a bit much, but I think 112 and 911 would be a good start.

But a real solution would be for the terminal to deduce that the user is trying to call an emergency number and then dial the correct number, whatever that may be at the current location at the current time.

    What might possibly be achievable is to take a single number that is universally available without conflicts, or where conflicts would be least painful to resolve,

Do you think there are numbers like this? Here in NL there was a drastic renumbering 10 years ago, about half the country got a new number. That was to allow 00 for int'l, 0800 and 0900 and 1xx. I don't think anyone feels like doing it again. :slight_smile:

This whole "single number" hype should end anyway. 10 years ago the
Dutch phone company had at least five different numbers: for b2c sales,
b2b sales, outages, billing and so on. Now they only have one number but
you have to waste time navigating through a "voice response" maze. That's
not what I call progress.

    That's a failure in their IVR design, yes.

Actually their system isn't that bad compared to others. But it still sucks compared to having different numbers that immediately connect you to the right person.

However, just because you can create badly designed IVR systems does not necessarily mean that all IVR systems should be outlawed.

No, they should be outlawed because even the good ones are incredibly annoying, and the bad ones lead to suicide.

    Likewise with emergency services numbers. They need to be well-designed, yes.

Unfortunately they leave a lot to be desired. Good reason to stay healthy and avoid accidents.

But they needn't be outlawed unversally just because some people are incompetent and cannot create one that works properly.

Who said anything about stuff being outlawed?

49

Anyway, my point being: the current numbers have been drilled into
our subconscious very effectively. Throwing that away woulde be an
amazing waste of time and money.

Would it? Are humans that difficult to teach? Is all advertising
a waste of time?

This whole "single number" hype should end anyway.

In Russia it is simple, there are three numbers:

01 - Fire Service
02 - Police
03 - Ambulance/Medical response

Easy to remember especially because the number is written
in large figures on the side of every emergency response
vehicle. You could even retrofit these numbers into other
countries because they are two digit numbers.

Although Russia has agreed to implement 112 emergency
dialling, the old numbers are still active nationwide.

--Michael Dillon

50

[...]

Does 112 work on non-GSM phones?

In most of Europe dialing 112 on any phone on a public phone
network, mobile or fixed, should get you an emergency operator.

When I wrote "non-GSM", I actually meant mobile phones in the USA that
don't use GSM technology so don't have the obligation to treat 112 as
special.

[...]

My only concern is the UK government persists in teaching the old
(local) 999 number, to avoid confusing the terminally stupid who
can't cope with the idea of remembering two emergency numbers.

That's because 999 isn't "the old number". 112 is provided for EU
reasons, but is not *the* number for emergency services. 17099 is also
available (possibly only from BT lines), presumably as some sort of
artifact of BT's routing, but isn't exactly advertised either.

(Go on, how many Brits here knew about 17099 before I mentioned it
here?)

As a result UK citizens end up either not knowing what to dial when
abroad, or having to remember which country they are in when dialing
for help.

If you don't even know what country you're in, I don't fancy your
chances telling emergency services where you are...

51

Personally, I assert that that's bad design for two reasons:

1) they're too *short*: they pre-empt too much dialling pattern space,
and they're hard to recognize as what they are, compared for example to
9-1-1 and 1-1-2.

2) it shouldn't, in general, be the place of *someone reporting an
emergency* to have to decide what kind of response they want. In the
US, for example, medical emergencies are often first-responded by
firefighter-paramedics, because there's a firestation closer than the
nearest ambulance. There's no way a caller could know what's closer...

Cheers,
-- jr 'ah... *telecom* :-)' a

52

"I blinked... Did we leave (Luxembourg / Andorra / Liechtenstein ) already?" :slight_smile:

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.... :wink: