FCC May Stop 911 Access For NSI Phones 211
An anonymous reader writes: It's generally known that if you call 911 from a cell phone in the USA, you will be connected to the nearest Public Safety Access Point, whether or not the phone has an active account. This is the basis for programs that distribute donated phones for emergency-only use. However, the FCC has proposed a rule change that would eliminate the requirement for telephone companies to connect 911 calls made by NSI (non-service-initialized) phones. The main reason for the proposed rule change are the problems caused by fraudulent 911 calls made through NSI phones. Yet respondents cited by the FCC show that as many as 30% of 911 calls from NSI phones are for legitimate emergencies. The comment period for the proposed rule change ends on June 6th, 2015.
Trolling Douchebags (Score:5, Insightful)
The main reason for the proposed rule change are the problems caused by fraudulent 911 calls made through NSI phones.
This is why we can't have nice things.
I wonder if the FCC will start a crusade against fraudulent 911 calls made through anonymous VOIP services? Maybe all 911 services? 'Cuz they're clearly getting abused.
Whew! I'm glad we're rid of that dirty bathwater. Too bad about the baby, though.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
70% are hoaxes.
A solution would be for the Cell carriers to be required to "register" those phones for free for 911 service.
Each must be attached to an id so you can bust people for swatting.
Not ideal but a compromise solution.
Re: (Score:3)
What percent are hoaxes in registered phones?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except, troll, 70% are not hoaxes. RTFA. Less than 10% are hoaxes, most calls are non-emergency calls, which plenty of people with non-NSI phones make as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
True... but with a phone with an active account, the caller can be held accountable for making a non-emergency call to 911.
That's not going to happen because otherwise people will stop calling 911 for real emergencies. You don't want people to wonder if the heart attack they are witnessing is enough of an emergency that they should risk calling 911.
Re:Trolling Douchebags (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that those worst cases are exactly the kinds of non-emergencies that people call 911 about... really stupid stuff that people should genuinely *know* better than to call 911 over. *THOSE* are the ones that can and sometimes actually do end up getting fined for such abuse
Of course, I could just assume that my friend was exaggerating, or maybe simply lying about his experiences on the job, but I really have no reason to do so.
The aforementioned example of a heart attack of unknown severity woul
Re:Trolling Douchebags (Score:5, Informative)
70% are hoaxes.
The number is actually more likely in the range of 90-99%, if the official source [federalregister.gov] is anything to go by. That "30% legitimate" number used in the summary was in regards to one county in Maryland in 2008 that was monitored for just one month, and it stands as an outlier that's an order of magnitude greater than some of the other numbers in the report. Why it was cherry-picked for the summary, I don't know, but here are all of the ones I found in the report (including the outlier):
in late 2006 from jurisdictions in four states, [an earlier report showed] that between 3.5% and less than 1% of 911 calls placed by NSI devices were legitimate calls relating to actual emergencies
Indiana estimated that over 90% of all NSI calls received were not legitimate
North Carolina similarly reported that between May 15, 2008 and June 15, 2008, PSAPs [Public Safety Answering Points, i.e. emergency call centers] across the state received 159,129 calls from NSI devices, of which 132,885, or 83.51%, were non-emergency calls, and an additional 11,395, or 7.16%, were “malicious” non-emergency calls
Tennessee states that during a three-month period in 2008, of over 10,000 NSI calls only 188 were valid emergencies.
Sonoma County, California indicates that between April 2011 and April 2013 only approximately 8% of calls from NSI devices were to report an emergency or crime
California, for example, stated that between October 1, 2007 and May 15, 2008, PSAPs across the state reported 266 active repetitive callers who placed over 77,000 calls to 911, mainly using NSI devices. Of the 266 callers identified, 85 had placed 200 or more calls, and eight callers had made more than 1,000 calls.
Peoria, Illinois similarly asserts that it got numerous calls from NSI phones that were used to harass the 9-1-1 telecommunicators and pump as many as 25 calls per day into Peoria's system, while few if any actual 9-1-1 calls came from these types of phones
Maryland indicated that 30% of calls to 911 from NSI handsets were legitimate in Montgomery County during the one-month period studied in 2008
There were a number of additional statements from various jurisdictions recounting their experiences with NSI E911 calls that used vague terms such as "vast majority", "biggest problem", "totally inundated", "inundated with phone calls from these phones with the only purpose being to harass the call takers/dispatchers", and "fraudulent calls to 911 from NSI devices constitute a large and continuing drain on public safety resources". There were also a number of statements describing the sorts of problems these calls are causing, such as "calls from a single child in one night nearly immobilized the call center's ability to receive actual emergency calls" and "receiving 911 calls from a non-initialized cellular phone [...] tied up one of our 911 trunks and made it unavailable for emergency calls", so it's clear that it's a major drain on their limited resources, since these calls account for a disproportionate amount of the total call volume, yet account for a disproportionately low amount of the legitimate calls.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the language from that report suggests that some of the calls may be legitimate, but non-emergency calls. People call 911 all the time for the stupidest things. For instance, calling 911 to report a fender bender. That is entirely inappropriate, and a complete drain on emergency resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Calling 911 is not a private act. it is a request for public resources.
This is only for none registered phones which can only call 911.
Privacy has nothing to do with this since cell phones 911 calls are also geolocated.
Re: (Score:2)
The NSI phones still have a unique IMEI. It would be trivial for the companies to cross-reference it to find out who the phone's original owner was.
The problem I suspect is that most of these prank calls are made using NSI phones which are no longer in the possession of their original owners. Stolen, lost, sold, given to a "fri
Re: (Score:2)
"How the service will verify the identity of the person doing the registration in the first place?"
With a photo id.
Re:Trolling Douchebags (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the question is simple. Do receiving 70% of the calls from NSI phones being trolls cause more irreversible consequences than not receiving the 30% that are not trolls.
It may well be that more than twice as many trolls in fact cause more legitimate emergencies to go unattended than simply not receiving the legitimate NSI calls causes.
Re: (Score:3)
This is called a risk assessment, and its something that most people (and the media) have no patience for: its far too levelheaded, and not nearly hysterical enough.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we can't have nice things.
This is totally a bogus reason why we can't. I think a better strategy would be a different screening process from emergency calls in from a NSI phone, Or tougher regulation on the distribution of NSI phones.
Perhaps new ones should have to contain a 'FCC ID CHIP', which is crypto-signed, and cannot be distributed without someone showing a drivers' license and ownership being recorded at the point of distribution.
Or require providers to initialize an "Emergency Only
Re: (Score:2)
Or - instead of having a choice between a paid service plan, or a non-paid service plan with no registration....
Perhaps there's a middle ground where people can register a phone to their name and service for zero dollars, with the phone only capable of making 911 calls. There's no reason that donated phones can't be attached to a new owner.
The important statistic is.... (Score:3)
what percentage of valid mobile 911 calls are made from NIS phones? Strangely, that number does not appear in the federal report. Saying that 30% of NIS calls are valid focuses on the problem. But if 1% (or more) of valid mobile 911 calls come from NIS phones, that is a valuable service that definitely should not be terminated without a plan for cost-free replacement.
Also, the blather about how inexpensive mobile phones are is seriously flawed. I recently dropped my full featured Verizon plan and change
Re:Trolling Douchebags (Score:5, Insightful)
Then disallow calling 911 from NSI phones and start giving away free but registered 911-only SIM cards with the phones.
Heck, make it empty but upgradable pre-paid cards and telecom providers will probably pay you money to give them away.
Re:Trolling Douchebags (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that this doesn't solve the problem. The problem that NSI calling addresses is that not everyone is prepared. Maybe I (as a brit) visit the US, and don't get a temporary SIM while I'm there - my SIM can't be used to make any calls at all... Except for that crucial 911 call that I wasn't prepared for.
Handing out free 911-only SIMs doesn't make it so that someone who is unprepared can call.
Re: (Score:2)
Then disallow calling 911 from NSI phones
This is EXACTLY what the FCC is trying to do.... The rest? Don't we already have free cell phone programs?
Re:Trolling Douchebags (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not what it's about. One could imagine a situation where kidnapped people would get their hands on a phone with no SIM card in it (or an inactive one) and dial 911. Take that away and it might kill people.
Yes, fraudulent 911 calls are a problem. But I'd rather have 100 of those for each legitimate call from an NSI phone which might save one or more lives.
This is yet another example where cost effectiveness mentality kills people.
Re:Trolling Douchebags (Score:5, Insightful)
I can imagine a situation where I call 911 with my phone (with current paid-for service) and help can't get to me because they're too busy checking out 100 prank phone calls from unregistered phones
This isn't about cost-effectiveness, it's about keeping our finite number emergency responders going after real emergencies.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you call 911 with your phone (with current paid-for service) and can't get through because you're out in the middle of nowhere and the only signal you get is not the one you paid for, and since you're somewhere remote the chance of someone else coming across you is slim.
Re: (Score:2)
How about call screening? You call in from a NSI telephone, then you are connected to an IVR. Before you are connected to a dispatcher, you have to listen to a 5 second voice prompt, and confirm that a person's is in immediate danger of death or severe injury by saying 1 or saying 'emergency', Please press 2 or say 'support' for any other problem.
If '2' is requested, the call will be redirected to a special police non-emergency number If '1' is requested, then a second screening stage will req
Re: (Score:2)
The situation you are mentioning is still a result of the cost effective mentality. If people are too busy checking the prank calls, it means there aren't enough people hired to do the job. They have to have enough people to accommodate the prank calls AND the legitimate ones.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the sort of logic that would block implementation of automated plane systems which could save thousands of lives per year because it might crash once or twice.
A system doesnt need to be perfect to be implemented as a replacement; it just has to be better, when you look at the big picture, than the thing it replaces.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't heard of a plane that has crashed twice, usually once will do the job.
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't heard of a plane that has crashed twice, usually once will do the job.
I see that you have never flown American Airlines.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't heard of a plane that has crashed twice, usually once will do the job.
I believe in the US... once a plane crashes, it is going out of commercial service permanently, as it would need a total overhaul --- even if the body of the plane survives, they are not going to risk the potential liability of flying equipment that might not be 100%.
However... in New Zealand, there was a time when a plane crashed twice [independent.co.uk] in one day; it crashed again after the supposedly minor damage from the first crash
The other side of the coin (Score:2)
Easy to say until you or someone you know and love are the person being denied access to 911 because of this rule change.
The question you also need to ask is how many people are dying because of the delays caused by responding to fraudulent emergency calls? I also fail to see how anyone is being 'denied' access to emergency calls: this is a choice they make when they purchase the mobile. If they choose to purchase a communication device without 911 access this is no different from those of us who make the choice not to own a mobile at all. I would hardly say that I have been denied access to 911 simply because I choose not t
Re:Trolling Douchebags (Score:4, Informative)
They're given out free to people in abuse shelters and the homeless which is probably the source of almost all of the legitimate traffic and the majority of the non-legitimate traffic as well (homeless folks tend to have mental problems as the root cause of their homelessness).
As to pranks, we've had E911 as a requirement for over a decade now, shouldn't be too hard to locate the perps if they keep doing it.
Re:Trolling Douchebags (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anyone who spends time charging and carrying around (as a phone) a phone that can only call 911.
These days there are purpose-built emergency phones. You don't need to charge. You use lithium batteries which last a long period of time (shelf life), as there is no draw from the cell until you need to activate the emergency-only device.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My town does this after hours too and I had no idea. After I big storm I dialed the local police non emergency number to tell them of a cracked and dangling branch hanging over a children's play area at a park where I walk my dog. Not urgent but it should probably be near the top of park and rec's things-to-fix when they show up on Monday. But being after hours (7pm on a weekend) it rolled over to county 911 and I felt pretty stupid as it clearly was a waste of the dispatchers time.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. If someone places 200+ calls to 911 and they are not stopped, this is a failure of E911, not the NSI policies.
Re:Trolling Douchebags (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, fraudulent 911 calls are a problem. But I'd rather have 100 of those for each legitimate call from an NSI phone which might save one or more lives.
This is yet another example where cost effectiveness mentality kills people.
What about people placed on hold because the emergency lines are tied up? Making decisions with your feelings can kill people, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "cost effectiveness" he's talking about is that rather than hiring more 911 operators and emergency staff to handle the additional volume (and create jobs at the same time), they instead look at eliminating all calls from NSI phones to keep volumes manageable, at the cost of cutting some legitimate users of 911 out.
Re:Trolling Douchebags (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, fraudulent 911 calls are a problem. But I'd rather have 100 of those for each legitimate call from an NSI phone which might save one or more lives.
The attitude that any cost is acceptable for the chance of saving a life is a common problem.
There is a point where the resources devoted to your pet cause A could be more beneficial -- even in terms of saving lives -- if directed elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
But I'd rather have 100 of those for each legitimate call from an NSI phone which might save one or more lives
1?
10?
100?
1000?
10000?
100000?
1000000?
The problem isn't the idea, it is at what point does one say "no". Lets say for argument, His maximum is 100/1 ratio, which might be reasonable. But the chances of life saving from the phones might not reach even this threshold. The person making this statement didn't say that was his Max, he didn't say what his max was, leaving the statement as undefined, and that is the problem.
It is right up there with all sorts of various nebulous points, for instance "fair share" is n
Re: (Score:2)
Take that away and it might kill people.
There are a lot of things that might kill people; to reduce the number of people killed to zero isnt possible, though you could pour endless resources into trying to do so.
The question is whether there are reasonable ways to provide access to 911 that do not themselves create worse problems like swatting; 70% of calls being fradulent starts to get into an area where legitimate services are impacted. Put another way: how many people die because legitimate resources were diverted by fraudulent calls?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One could imagine a situation where kidnapped people would get their hands on a phone with no SIM card in it (or an inactive one) and dial 911. Take that away and it might kill people.
I can imagine it, doesn't mean it will happen ... ever. But instead of making fun of people, explain it in simple terms.
Kidnappings are very rare. Everything after that is even more rare. All the "might" after that simply means that it is less likely to happen. At some point, there is practically no chance of it ever happening.
Might get kidnapped
Might get a cell phone
Might not be enable
Might be charged enough to work
Might get rescued
Any break in that is an escape clause for the need. I'm not kidnapped, I do
Re:Trolling Douchebags (Score:5, Informative)
And keep in mind, what I consider a legitimate call isn't necessarily an emergency call either. It's pretty damn rare to get a legitimate emergency call from an NSI phone. Usually it's someone reporting a stolen phone or some other low priority. This isn't about cost effectiveness, it's about efficient use of limited resources. It sucks watching officers do the 911 hangup/open line wild goose chase when there's legit emergencies to respond to.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My grandmother used a NSI cell when she had VOIP service down in florida and for when she was traveling through the US. She was in her late 70's at the time, she had no need for a functioning cell, only the need in case there was an emergency. The best answer is to register the phones, and when some little shit rat decides to go "hur-dur-dur I'm in ur 911 fuckin' you up" slap them with the cost of dispatching EMS.
Re:Trolling Douchebags (Score:5, Insightful)
They probably got tired of calls from Demetri (Score:3)
Hello, 9-11? This is Demetri again. The aliens are back, and this time they brought Brett Favre with them!
Re: (Score:2)
But, Brett Favre is an alien. Everybody knows that. ;-)
we might as well (Score:3)
just toss old cell phones in the trash then
thats probably bad for the environment
Another gift to the corporate oligarchy (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet another government gift to the corporate oligarchy. Now if you want access to 911 you'll have to pay Big Communications for it.
Re: (Score:2)
/. is so paranoid when it comes to companies. The cost of processing 911 calls isn't that much and the local 911 centers are good customers, heck these fraudulent calls might well be net profitable for the telcos. Where the costs are incurred is the 911 centers processing the calls and then even worse police and fire departments in responding to them. This policy change is the federal government helping out local government. It has nothing to do with "corporate oligarchy".
Re: (Score:2)
Supporting old (non standard) phones is a serious cost, so good point.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we primarily talking about 'swatting' attacks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Prank calls to emergency services have been going on long before 911, but I'm sure that burner phones, which seems to be the category of device we're dealing with here, would be ideal for calling in those false emergency reports designed to send SWAT teams to the home of someone you don't like.
Re:Are we primarily talking about 'swatting' attac (Score:4, Informative)
We cannot normally get subscriber information on wireless phones. The information we get is the phone number, the tower it's pinging off of, and sometimes location information gained either by triangulation from nearby cell towers or the phones internal GPS. It works this way whether its an activated phone or an NSI phone. So regardless of which, I can get at least some degree of location information off of ANY wireless phone. (The scene in the movie The Call where they say we can't get location information because it's a prepaid is complete bullshit, fabricated for the sake of the plot).
The real issue is having to use finite resources to respond to fraudulent or illegitimate calls. When you consider most police departments and 911 call centers are short staffed as it is, it makes this an even bigger problem.
The other 70% (Score:3)
What's the breakdown of the other 70%? Are they mostly prank calls?
Re: (Score:2)
The NSI phones are often distributed to mentally challenged individuals or medical shut-ins, who are largely unattended during the day, as a way for them to call help in an emergency. These folks--many infirm/all lonely--learned that the phone would dial 911, and the operator-unlike most people they encountered (if they encountered people at all) would speak with them. Many such calls were repeated dozens of times (or more) each day. And the rest were just dopes with nothing better to do.
Isn't in the US a number you can call when you feel depressed, something like the Lifeline I've just found about on Google? It would be more useful if NSI phones could make that kind of calls, too.
Obvious point of comparison? (Score:5, Insightful)
But what am I supposed to compare that to? What are the numbers for wired phones? Cellphones on contracts? Prepaid cell phones?
This seems like pretty important information if one hopes to make a decision. Nobody wants bogus 911 calls cluttering up the system; but is 70% fraud similar? Modestly worse? Terrible?
Also, if we deem 911 access to be a social good(which is why NSI 911 calls work at all, and seems pretty reasonable), why not split the difference and allow someone to 'register' an NSI phone(having their particulars on file with 911 dispatch is likely to discourage spurious use and potentially be useful for locating them in an emergency if they are unable to provide clarification themselves thanks to injury or exigent circumstance) without signing up for a paid calling plan? So long as it is 911 only, it's still no competition for actual calling plans; but it's less draconian than just killing NSI 911 entirely.
Re:Obvious point of comparison? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Source [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But the numbers you have come up with are not comparable to each other, as they are for different areas and data sets.
25% of calls are pranks, while 70% are dialled inadvertently - an inadvertent dial is not a prank, and a prank is not an inadvertent dial, so these figures are not comparable.
45% of calls in California are for non-emergencies, but that doesn't make them pranks, fraudulent or inadvertent dials. Sacramento is above the average in California for this type of call - but it doesn't mean the 45%
Re: (Score:2)
But the numbers you have come up with are not comparable to each other, as they are for different areas and data sets.
25% of calls are pranks, while 70% are dialled inadvertently - an inadvertent dial is not a prank, and a prank is not an inadvertent dial, so these figures are not comparable.
Of course they are comparable. You only have 100% of calls available to you. If 70% were dialed inadvertently and 25% were dialed as pranks, that would suggest that only 5% were dialed on purpose and NOT a prank.
30% (Score:3)
That sounds really bad. But we need the percentage of "legitimate" calls made from regular phones to really know if it is bad or not.
If that comparison number is less than 60%, than they have no real argument. But if say 90% of regular phone calls to 911 are legit, then they have a more reasonable argument.
Just flag the NSI calls (Score:2, Insightful)
Flag the NSI calls. If the 911 dispatcher can tell that a call is coming from a NSI phone, they can apply the appropriate level of skepticism.
It's better than disabling all the phones.
Re: (Score:3)
Need more info (Score:2, Insightful)
I would like a break down of the break down of the 70% on pranks vs stupidiy calls and a compare on how many regular phones numbers get of valid prank and stupidly calls
Proposal (Score:2)
What if NSI phones when dialing 911 need to listen to a 2 second message indicating they're about to be put in touch with emergency services and to hang up if they do not need emergency services and otherwise to press 1 to continue. It's 1 extra button push and might filter out butt dials and other mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, the 911 operator can only direct people to your location, and has no magic power to help things over the phone. It will take a few minutes, minimum, for help to arrive (and a lot longer in many situations), and two seconds more or less isn't going to change anything.
Re: (Score:2)
What if NSI phones when dialing 911 need to listen to a 2 second message indicating they're about to be put in touch with emergency services and to hang up if they do not need emergency services and otherwise to press 1 to continue. It's 1 extra button push and might filter out butt dials and other mistakes.
And small children who are playing with the "old" phone...
Re: (Score:3)
"If this is an emergency, hang up and dial 911".
Oh. Wait.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok we have defined the problem (Score:2)
Now let us put all of the best minds together and develop a solution. Oh wait... this is America. We only respond to money so there will be no solution.
But on another gambit... I'd suggest that all incoming H1-B visa tech workers be required to donate some time to solving this problem. For they claim to be the best and the brightest. (Of which the USA corporations claim they simply cannot do without.)
Legitimate Emergencies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the calls:
- real emergencies
- non-emergencies made by idiots [youtube.com]
- prank calls
I wonder.... (Score:3)
How many of the "fraudulent" 70% are from small children who are given an old cell phone to play with.
How many parents don't know that any cell phone which previously had service can make 911 calls? How many of these just get handed to Jr. to shut him up when he's begging to play with Mom's smart phone? How many times does Jr. manage to press the right buttons to dial 911? I'm guessing it's a lot..
The question to be asking is.... (Score:2)
If 30% of the calls to 911 were legitimate emergencies, what percentage of those emergencies would have been reported as promptly if there had been a requirement that a phone used to call 911 only be from a registered phone? If that percentage is not very high, then it's my opinion that they may have to simply factor in such non-emergencies into the "cost of business" as it were.
Of course, if that percentage actually works out to be something quite high, then I don't really see a huge problem with it.
Easy solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Keep 911 for real emergencies.
Add 922 for fake emergencies.
This is the message for 922:
"Thank you for calling the prank emergency line. Your prank will be recorded and the best ones will be added into a 'best of' compilation of the year. Thank you."
Putting an incentive (the "best of" compilation) will push a lot of those pranks to the new number ("Hey man! My prank was chosen! I rule!") and those compilations could be sold as profit to help pay for both 911 and 922 services.
I call bullshit on the 911-only phones (Score:3)
I don't believe that you can donate your old cell phones to be used as 911-only phones by victims of domestic violence, etc. It's an urban myth.
I checked it out once because of a 90-year-old neighbor. He had a stroke, and he was lying in the bathroom for 24 hours, unable to call for help, until one of his children came over for their daily check-in.
I tried to find out where in New York City I could get one of those 911-only reconditioned cell phones, that he could carry with him and use if something similar happened again. I researched the Internet, made several calls, and couldn't find one.
But who needs one? Low-income people can get a free Assurance or Safelink phone, that they can use to call 911 and everything else (like doctors and relatives). So why would anybody want a phone that could do nothing but call 911?
I just called another nationwide service (which I am not identifying because I don't want everybody calling them), and the woman answering the phone told me that they really don't provide people with reconditioned 911-only cell phones. They collect the old phones, turn them into Verizon, and Verizon gives them "Help" phones which are cheap cell phones with free minutes on them.
Try it yourself. Call one of those services and ask them whether they can give you a reconditioned phone. They can't.
Think about it. You can buy a low-end wireless phone new for $15 retail (and probably $5 wholesale). In order to "recondition" them, you'd need a technician to check it out, to make sure it's working. People would be using them for life-threatening emergencies, so they have to work reliably. You'd have to repackage and distribute them. It's cheaper for a phone company or any agency to just buy new phones in bulk. But why bother? Why not just let people get a phone directly from Assurance or Safelink?
As MANY as 30%? (Score:2)
So, nobody knows how to measure whether the number of calls to 911 that are legitimate. Therefore, the whole article comes under susp
My Parents and other old people (Score:2)
my parents, refuse to own a cell phone, i managed to get them to keep an un-activated one in their car in case of emergencies finally i'd be saddened if this feature was disabled.
Generally known but incorrect... (Score:2)
If you call 911 from a cellphone in southeastern MA, your call is sent to state police headquarters, then it is transferred to the nearest state police barracks, THEN it is transferred to the primary PSAP. So I guess it is more correct to say that you will be connected to the PSAP *eventually*.
Source, I'm an EMT, my paramedic partner is also a MA state cop.
FCC cannot prevent fraud (Score:2)
Wrong way of looking at things (Score:2)
"Yet respondents cited by the FCC show that as may as 30% of 911 calls from NSI phones are for legitimate emergencies"
= As much as 70% of 911 calls from NSI phones are fraudulent.
Increase fines or jail (Score:2)
You keep on hearing on how people are abusing the 911 system with stupid calls. Doesn't matter if it with a NSI phone or not. Maybe they should start laying down some hefty fines, community service, or even some jail time (on weekends or when the person isn't working so that they don't lose their job) for the abuses and maybe people will get the idea that 911 is for emergencies. Then you won't have people calling because someone put ketchup on their burger.
Why is this rule change being proposed? (Score:2)
Quick questions:
1.: what are the profits made by the major telecoms in the last year?
2. what do the alleged false calls cost to
a) the providers?
b) the 911 call centers?
3. What is the value of the 30+% that are *legitimate* screams for help, and the value of the lives if they can't make those calls?
Re: (Score:3)
I'd imagine 911 can charge fines to land lines and service cell phones for wasting their resources on non-emergencies. NSI phones might be harder to squeeze fines out of.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine the 911 operators can collect statistics on this. If it is people who genuinely don't have a clue that 911 is not to be used if your McDonalds order is wrong, then these calls will be made as frequently from phones with active accounts. If people have the presence of mind to select an 'anonymous' phone when placing such a call, that goes a long way toward proving intent to disrupt service.
Re: (Score:2)
The killer app for Apple Pay.
Re: (Score:2)