B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| reply to MartyT
Re: VOIP E911, good news amid the bad
I do really appreciate the advice, but you folks are proving my point. There's no one way to do it properly. I'd bet that in burris's case, the police department told him it was fine to test, and then didn't do a damn thing. They simply counted on him or her informing the E911 operator that it was a test call.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
burris
Premium
join:2000-08-22
Miami, FL
 ·VOIPo
 ·AT&T Southeast
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
| said by B  :I do really appreciate the advice, but you folks are proving my point. There's no one way to do it properly. I'd bet that in burris's case, the police department told him it was fine to test, and then didn't do a damn thing. They simply counted on him or her informing the E911 operator that it was a test call. -- B What is your point?? I called...I tested and all was ok.
How to improve on that?? |
|
unknvoip
join:2006-07-25
Rochester, NY
·ViaTalk
| said by burris :How to improve on that?? Nothing that I can imagine.
Just make sure you tell the 911 operator that this is a non-emergency call and immediately tell them why you are calling.
In the case of calling the Police or 911 Administrator prior to the 911 center, I'm sure they would know if there were a situation causing high call volumes to the local 911 center and advise you not to call then. |
|
soitgoes2
join:2005-01-14
·Future Nine Corpor..
| reply to burris
Doing it properly is obtaining permission so you aren't violating the law/getting in trouble for calling 911 in the absence of an emergency. Of course you need to talk to the operator when they answer and tell them it was a test. Indeed, you want to talk to the operator to verify that your address information is being passed on appropriately, etc. |
|
Fisamo
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Apex, NC
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to B
This situation illustrates the joys of local control. It may not make sense for a 'one size fits all' approach here (in terms of ONE local procedure for reaching PSAP administration). It seems that the general advice is to look for an administrative number for your PSAP, and call that to ask permission (if you can find such a number). If you cannot find that number, requesting permission of the local emergency services (local PD or FD--I'd probably call PD first) is the next step. Honestly, the main reason for this is probably to be sure you're not calling during a 'busy time' (e.g. school bus crashes on the interstate, causing a 50 car pile-up).
FWIW, when I called the local PD, they gave me that administrative number to call for the PSAP. In my area, that number doubles as the non-E911 routing to the dispatchers. I actually got the same dispatcher dialing the 10-digit number AND when test-dialing 911 a few seconds later.  |
|
soitgoes2
join:2005-01-14
·Future Nine Corpor..
| said by Fisamo :I actually got the same dispatcher dialing the 10-digit number AND when test-dialing 911 a few seconds later. Yep. Sometimes the only difference is the call priority and info displayed. |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| reply to burris
Hey, I'm not looking to fight about this, guys!
I'm just saying, from the beginning up there, that there's no uniform way to seek or acquire "permission" to test E911. (Frankly, the uncertainty and potential hassle involved probably keeps lots of people like me from doing such essential tests.)
If we have to pick apart a specific example, it's certainly possible (if very unlikely) for someone to prosecute burris for having made a non-emergency E911 call unless he had it in writing and signed by an appropriate party that he had been granted permission. Having a verbal "yeah sure" from Officer Flanagan might not exactly hold up, especially if the P.O. doesn't recall the conversation.
But I don't care so please don't get on my case about this.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
