| reply to Maccawolf
Re: Too late said by Maccawolf:Didn't quite a few people, myself included, drop their landline for cell only service, and don't we pay a monthly charge for 911 access? The answer to both those questions is YES. Hypothetically, if someone I knows, dies because I can't get through to 911, AT&T will have a NICE lawsuit on their hands. And I'm NOT one of those who sues everything in sight. True that. If I needed to call 911, and couldn't get through, I would sue AT&T for so much money I would use their $20 bills it to light my $100 cigars.
I really believe though if you didn't want the ability to call 911 you could tell them to disable the feature and drop the charge. But, if you are really in need of an extra $12/year, I don't think you should buy a cell phone in the first place! |
|
| said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:said by Maccawolf:Didn't quite a few people, myself included, drop their landline for cell only service, and don't we pay a monthly charge for 911 access? The answer to both those questions is YES. Hypothetically, if someone I knows, dies because I can't get through to 911, AT&T will have a NICE lawsuit on their hands. And I'm NOT one of those who sues everything in sight. True that. If I needed to call 911, and couldn't get through, I would sue AT&T for so much money I would use their $20 bills it to light my $100 cigars. You're both living in a dream world if you think that you will see some kind of huge payoff for not being able to reach nine one one from your mobile phone. You can file suit -but one of your causes of action better include a death- and secondly, you better have airtight evidence that it was either (1) Not your phone's malfunction that caused the inability to reach nine one one and/or (2) the network was faulty.
In either scenario, I hope you have pockets as deep as the carrier you think you're going to sue because you will need it to pay your attorney's retainer and fees. If not, then you're going to have to wake up and quit dreaming about lighting a cigar with $100.00 bills. |
|
|
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
I don't think AT&T is afraid of being sued by someone that writes "true that" and smokes cigars. |
|
| reply to SilverSurfer1
said by SilverSurfer1:said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:said by Maccawolf:Didn't quite a few people, myself included, drop their landline for cell only service, and don't we pay a monthly charge for 911 access? The answer to both those questions is YES. Hypothetically, if someone I knows, dies because I can't get through to 911, AT&T will have a NICE lawsuit on their hands. And I'm NOT one of those who sues everything in sight. True that. If I needed to call 911, and couldn't get through, I would sue AT&T for so much money I would use their $20 bills it to light my $100 cigars. You're both living in a dream world if you think that you will see some kind of huge payoff for not being able to reach nine one one from your mobile phone. You can file suit -but one of your causes of action better include a death- and secondly, you better have airtight evidence that it was either (1) Not your phone's malfunction that caused the inability to reach nine one one and/or (2) the network was faulty. In either scenario, I hope you have pockets as deep as the carrier you think you're going to sue because you will need it to pay your attorney's retainer and fees. If not, then you're going to have to wake up and quit dreaming about lighting a cigar with $100.00 bills. Uhh, then why do you pay an extra fee to use 911? Afaik, 911 calls are NOT routed over the normal GSM network, rather through CDMA which allows better tracking for your position. And most providers will allow a 911 call to go through on a non activated phone, which logically can't go through the normal network because it isn't authorized to make/receive calls, data, or text.
You are making a tone that makes me think you don't think its that reliable, if that is the case, then why don't *you* have it disabled on your phone?
The case is fairly easy to show -
- Show that a call to 911 was placed during the time of the emergency and it should show a duration of 0 seconds if they call was never connected.
- Show that you can make and receive calls now.
I don't understand what other evidence you need? |
|
| reply to SLD
said by SLD:I don't think AT&T is afraid of being sued by someone that writes "true that" and smokes cigars. If you write perfect, proper English in any of the following:
+ Emails
+ Text messages
+ IMs
You:
+ Are an alien
+ Are a robot
+ Have no friends
No one on planet Earth, speaks or writes perfect English every day of their lives since language rules are really dictated by the society (which change daily) and everyone will have their own slang or way of saying things.
But, we are getting off topic I suppose. |
|
SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Nice response, I'm sure that statement is true in your circles; but it isn't true in mine.
Have a nice day! |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·T-Mobile US
·AT&T Wireless Br..
 ·ViaTalk
·Verizon Broadban..
| reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:Uhh, then why do you pay an extra fee to use 911? Afaik, 911 calls are NOT routed over the normal GSM network, rather through CDMA which allows better tracking for your position. And most providers will allow a 911 call to go through on a non activated phone, which logically can't go through the normal network because it isn't authorized to make/receive calls, data, or text. You are making a tone that makes me think you don't think its that reliable, if that is the case, then why don't *you* have it disabled on your phone? The case is fairly easy to show - - Show that a call to 911 was placed during the time of the emergency and it should show a duration of 0 seconds if they call was never connected. - Show that you can make and receive calls now. I don't understand what other evidence you need? Nope. If a GSM customer calls 911 it will use the GSM network to route the 911 call, it will be less reliable for locating though because GSM based networks including W-CDMA 3GSM network ONLY use Triangulation for location, unless the 3G network and handset support A-GPS E911 which I am not sure T-Mobile or AT&T support that. Real CDMA1x2000 based networks like Verizon and Sprint use AFLT Triangulation and A-GPS for location.
--
I get 29 MPG in my Toyota Highlander Hybrid! |
|
 bionicRodFunkier than a mohair disco ball.Premium
join:2009-07-06
united state
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Mediacom
| reply to SLD
Sorry, but you failed. Nice response is a sentence all by itself. So is the sentence that begins with "I'm sure...". Therefore you should not separate the two with a comma but with either a period or a semicolon. Similarly, the semicolon later on is used incorrectly as well. THAT is where you would correctly use a comma.  |
|
SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
1 edit | It is irrelevant. The comment was regarding language, not punctuation.
[Was that better?]
 |
|
| said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:said by SLD:I don't think AT&T is afraid of being sued by someone that writes "true that" and smokes cigars. If you write perfect, proper English in any of the following: + Emails + Text messages + IMs You: + Are an alien + Are a robot + Have no friends No one on planet Earth, speaks or writes perfect English every day of their lives since language rules are really dictated by the society (which change daily) and everyone will have their own slang or way of saying things. But, we are getting off topic I suppose. said by SLD:It is irrelevant. The comment was regarding language, not punctuation. [Was that better?] Punctuation IS a part of language. The Spanish language uses an upside question mark for questions. German language uses 2 funny dots at the top of some of their letters to show how a word should be pronounced.
So, therefore, in your last statement you proved that even you don't write perfect English. So, why criticize other people how they talk, or I guess in this case, type? You understood what I meant, the language I used was a common slang in the English language. I hope outside of this forum you don't laugh at people because they can't speak English well or have an accent...or speak slang. |
|
| reply to iLive4Fusion
said by iLive4Fusion:said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:Uhh, then why do you pay an extra fee to use 911? Afaik, 911 calls are NOT routed over the normal GSM network, rather through CDMA which allows better tracking for your position. And most providers will allow a 911 call to go through on a non activated phone, which logically can't go through the normal network because it isn't authorized to make/receive calls, data, or text. You are making a tone that makes me think you don't think its that reliable, if that is the case, then why don't *you* have it disabled on your phone? The case is fairly easy to show - - Show that a call to 911 was placed during the time of the emergency and it should show a duration of 0 seconds if they call was never connected. - Show that you can make and receive calls now. I don't understand what other evidence you need? Nope. If a GSM customer calls 911 it will use the GSM network to route the 911 call, it will be less reliable for locating though because GSM based networks including W-CDMA 3GSM network ONLY use Triangulation for location, unless the 3G network and handset support A-GPS E911 which I am not sure T-Mobile or AT&T support that. Real CDMA1x2000 based networks like Verizon and Sprint use AFLT Triangulation and A-GPS for location. Not that I am calling you a lier, but can you post a source so I can read more up on it?
I could have sworn that when you dial 911 it does it over a different network and not treat it like a normal voice call. |
|
 MaccawolfPremium
join:2001-02-20
Hillsdale, NJ
kudos:6 | I don't think what the article said was about misinformation about GPS location, I thought it said the CALLS were being routed incorrectly and not going to 911 at all.
Did I read that wrong?
--
Mom and Crockett...... I miss you both! |
|
SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
3 edits | reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
Personally, I see a *huge* difference between a misplaced comma (or umlaut in your example) vs. Ebonics. Besides, I wasn't criticizing you, I was just making some light humor. You threw the insults.
BTW, the use of the semicolon in my previous post was grammatically correct. I'm not sure what the poster was writing about when he said it was used incorrectly. |
|
bionicRodFunkier than a mohair disco ball.Premium
join:2009-07-06
united state Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Mediacom
| I hate to keep posting so terribly OT here, but imagined grammatical superiority in someone who makes a grammatical error in the post where they're making fun of someone else for their grammar irritates me.
Correct Usage of the Semicolon (;)
The semicolon is used when connecting two sentences or independent clauses. Unlike the comma, you do not use coordinating conjunctions, e.g., and, or, but, etc. A semicolon can also be used when connecting two independent clauses with conjunctive adverbs, e.g., however, therefore, thus, otherwise, etc. When beginning the second independent clause after a semicolon, do not use a capital.
Correct Usage of the Comma with Independent Clauses
When linking two independent clauses with coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, for, so, nor, yet), place the comma before the conjunction. Remember: do not use the comma if you do not have two independent clauses.
Therefore, your semicolon before 'but' was not correct; a comma would have been. And when combining two sentences, a semicolon and not a comma. Oh yeah, and the link:
»hubpages.com/hub/Semicolonvscomma
Not that any of this matters. AT ALL. |
|
SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
1 edit | From another source (Wikipedia), a contradiction to what you just wrote:
Between independent clauses linked with a transitional phrase or a conjunctive adverb: "I like to eat cows; however, I don't like to be eaten by them."
I guess it depends on your source... |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T Wireless Br..
·ViaTalk
·Verizon Broadban..
| reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:said by iLive4Fusion:said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:Uhh, then why do you pay an extra fee to use 911? Afaik, 911 calls are NOT routed over the normal GSM network, rather through CDMA which allows better tracking for your position. And most providers will allow a 911 call to go through on a non activated phone, which logically can't go through the normal network because it isn't authorized to make/receive calls, data, or text. You are making a tone that makes me think you don't think its that reliable, if that is the case, then why don't *you* have it disabled on your phone? The case is fairly easy to show - - Show that a call to 911 was placed during the time of the emergency and it should show a duration of 0 seconds if they call was never connected. - Show that you can make and receive calls now. I don't understand what other evidence you need? Nope. If a GSM customer calls 911 it will use the GSM network to route the 911 call, it will be less reliable for locating though because GSM based networks including W-CDMA 3GSM network ONLY use Triangulation for location, unless the 3G network and handset support A-GPS E911 which I am not sure T-Mobile or AT&T support that. Real CDMA1x2000 based networks like Verizon and Sprint use AFLT Triangulation and A-GPS for location. Not that I am calling you a lier, but can you post a source so I can read more up on it? I could have sworn that when you dial 911 it does it over a different network and not treat it like a normal voice call. Well I mean it's just kinda the way it works. A phone will use ANY COMPATIBLE network to dial 911 when there, but a GSM phone Cannot, will not ever use CDMA to make a 911 call. It's just not possible. And I work for a 911 center on their switching equiptment
--
I get 29 MPG in my Toyota Highlander Hybrid! |
|
 quetwoThat VoIP GuyPremium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
A cellular telephone, when calling an emergency number, will use the network with the strongest signal level that it can talk to. Most GSM phones only have GSM radios (850/1800/1900), and most CDMA based phones only have CDMA radios (700/825/1700/1800). For a phone to have both, you usually have to give up a lot of battery or functionality. Most phones that can talk to both are labeled as "World Phones" or something similar.
Many GSM based devices are located with sattelite-based GPS location radios. This is used to supplement the GSM triangulation services provided by the towers to give a more accurate location. (GSM trangiluation is usually accurate to about 1800 feet in the city, and about 3500 feet in less dense areas). CDMA is usually accurate within about 150-400 feet in the city, and about 1200 feet in less populus areas.
The reason why an "unregistered" phone (a phone with no SIM card, or one that has a canceled account, or one from another company) can still call 911 is because the cell companies are required to allow them to access their networks in the case of emergency calls. COR 0 (used for any unregistered or unreconized phone) is often allowed to dial emergency numbers (911), the operator, and customer service numbers (611). |
|
bionicRodFunkier than a mohair disco ball.Premium
join:2009-07-06
united state | reply to SLD
Actually read my post above again. You CAN use a semicolon before 'however'. Both sources agree, but for future reference Wikipedia is not a good source as anyone can change it at any time. I have a degree in English by the way. |
|
SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | I agree about Wikipedia, but your source actually says the same thing:
"A semicolon can also be used when connecting two independent clauses with conjunctive adverbs, e.g., however, therefore, thus, otherwise, etc. When beginning the second independent clause after a semicolon, do not use a capital."
I considered my "but" to be a conjunctive adverb since it was a shorter substitute for "however". That may or may not be valid - I'll leave it to the experts |
|
 MizzatWill post for thumbsPremium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
kudos:1 | Seriously guys? So OT it isn't even funny. There is no such thing as perfect English. Give it up.
--
-M |
|
