Call dropped during 911 call...

[EricNau]

Yes, apparently you guys now have to pay in order to be able to use this "service" at all. This is what happens when you let corporations run basic services:

http://www.callcentric.com/faq/23

Swell. I'm amazed every day

It's a completely different matter with VoIP services. The must maintain specialized E911 databases in order to provide the local dispatch center with your address, in a similar fashion to traditional phone lines. This service obviously costs them money, which they recuperate through small fees as the service is utilized.

 

[StoneColdSober]

According to a document on the AT&T website "Make safety your most important call. In the case of an emergency, a cell phone can be a very useful tool. Remember, dialing 911 is always a free call."

This page can be found here.

AT&T does charge a monthly charge as a 911 recovery fee that goes towards the E911 compliance but I have never heard of 911 calls being charged to cellular customers and I would be willing to bet the FCC would not look to highly upon the practice.

 

[Tosser]

It's a completely different matter with VoIP services. The must maintain specialized E911 databases in order to provide the local dispatch center with your address, in a similar fashion to traditional phone lines. This service obviously costs them money, which they recuperate through small fees as the service is utilized.

If you take a look at their faq, this is not about VoIP. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find much about VoIP there.

What's more, it seems like you're actually defending having to pay to use 911, because they have to "recuperate" the money.
Well, surprise, in most other countries in the developed world, you don't have to pay, the government does, so noone is kept from dialing in order to help.
I'm sorry, but being european may not give me a "right" to point out how ridiculous that system is, but it sure does put things in perspective.

 

[StoneColdSober]

If you take a look at their faq, this is not about VoIP. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find much about VoIP there.

What's more, it seems like you're actually defending having to pay to use 911, because they have to "recuperate" the money. Well, surprise, in most other countries in the developed world, you don't have to pay, the government does, so noone is kept from dialing in order to help.
I'm sorry, but being european may not give me a "right" to point out how ridiculous that system is, but it sure does put things in perspective.

You can call it ridiculous but you do understand that the government paying really means the tax payers are paying.

The charges charged by cellular phone companies and VOIP companies are charged for E911 (enhanced) services. These are costs associated with making it possible for emergency responders to locate the caller even if the caller can not give the operator a location.

And as I previously noted, at least with AT&T calls to 911 are free, the charges I am referring too is a recovery fee added on to the monthly bill whether you use 911 or not. I have no issue with this as I just think of it as a tax.

 

[EricNau]

If you take a look at their faq, this is not about VoIP. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find much about VoIP there.

No, it is. Every answer is specific to that company's 911 policy. The fees, the process, everything. Virtually every step of that process (activating, provisioning, etc.) is specific to VoIP E911 services, and is not necessary with a traditional wire-line telephone.

What's more, it seems like you're actually defending having to pay to use 911, because they have to "recuperate" the money.
Well, surprise, in most other countries in the developed world, you don't have to pay, the government does, so noone is kept from dialing in order to help.
I'm sorry, but being european may not give me a "right" to point out how ridiculous that system is, but it sure does put things in perspective.

You're paying through taxes, no? Just think of our fees as a tax: it's essentially what they are.

 

[Tosser]

You can call it ridiculous but you do understand that the government paying really means the tax payers are paying.

Of course I do. And that way, no company will have to make money on emergency calls, and rich and poor have the same access, without them having to think if they can afford to call for help, or are willing to having to dispute a fee after they called for help for someone else.

In the words of Flavor Flav: 911 is a joke.

The charges charged by cellular phone companies and VOIP companies are charged for E911 (enhanced) services. These are costs associated with making it possible for emergency responders to locate the caller even if the caller can not give the operator a location.

I am not disputing that there are costs involved running an emergency service, I am commenting on how the money to that service is being gathered.

No, it is. Every answer is specific to that company's 911 policy. The fees, the process, everything. Virtually every step of that process (activating, provisioning, etc.) is specific to VoIP E911 services, and is not necessary with a traditional wire-line telephone.

So, because it can _also_ be about VoIP, you then argue that the faq is not about ordinary phone lines to be connected and subscribing to 911? Please …

You're paying through taxes, no? Just think of our fees as a tax: it's essentially what they are.

Except, it's not.

What you guys don't seem to be able to get, is that I'm not having trouble understanding how it works, I have a problem with the whole set-up: To me, an emergency service should be available to everyone and not a subscription service. Economy from the users point of view should not even enter into the equation.

 

[StoneColdSober]

It is available to everyone. The FCC requires that even cellular handsets be able to call 911 even if they are not activated, have no rate plan and even if they have no SIM card (if the model uses one). Obviously if the phone is not activated, has no rate plan and doesn't even have a SIM card, how is that caller going to be charged.

Now if you have a rate plan on a cellular phone or a VOIP line they charge a recovery fee for the E911 service but again this is no different than a portion of YOUR taxes in Europe going towards 911 service.

Now if you look at the CallCentric page you linked too, up in the right hand corner, it's called Callcentric Internet Phone Service (a VOIP service). So yes, all the charges they are detailing are in reference to THEIR service which is VOIP.

 

[bluenoise]

If AT&T charges for each emergency call (as opposed to the fee on our bills), who gets the bill when an unsubscribed phone makes the call? I've called 911 a couple of times over the years from my AT&T phone and have never been charged for it.

 

[EricNau]

So, because it can _also_ be about VoIP, you then argue that the faq is not about ordinary phone lines to be connected and subscribing to 911? Please …

I don't think you understand how the 911 system works in the US, nor the differences between traditional wire-line telephones and VoIP lines.

So yes, I am saying that those FAQs don't apply in the slightest to traditional wire-line telephones.

Except, it's not.

What you guys don't seem to be able to get, is that I'm not having trouble understanding how it works, I have a problem with the whole set-up: To me, an emergency service should be available to everyone and not a subscription service. Economy from the users point of view should not even enter into the equation.

It is available to everyone, I assure you. Every phone in the US is required by law to connect to a 911 dispatch center for free. And regardless of the fees afterwards, it's never been an issue because the average fee is around $1 to $2.

 

[Tosser]

It is available to everyone. The FCC requires that even cellular handsets be able to call 911 even if they are not activated, have no rate plan and even if they have no SIM card (if the model uses one). Obviously if the phone is not activated, has no rate plan and doesn't even have a SIM card, how is that caller going to be charged.

Now if you have a rate plan on a cellular phone or a VOIP line they charge a recovery fee for the E911 service but again this is no different than a portion of YOUR taxes in Europe going towards 911 service.

It isn't? Unless you guys have a society with less or even NO difference between rich and poor, there certainly is a difference.

Now if you look at the CallCentric page you linked too, up in the right hand corner, it's called Callcentric Internet Phone Service (a VOIP service). So yes, all the charges they are detailing are in reference to THEIR service which is VOIP.

Granted. I somehow missed that part early saturday morning.

 

[StoneColdSober]

Of course I do. And that way, no company will have to make money on emergency calls, and rich and poor have the same access, without them having to think if they can afford to call for help, or are willing to having to dispute a fee after they called for help for someone else.

One person has said they were charged for a 911 call. I believe they are incorrect but I could be wrong. If you refer to my previous post it clearly addresses your concern I am quoting.

As for how the money is collected, that is a distinction without a difference. The specific fees associated with E911 have no bearing on whether someone can call 911 it has to do with maintaining information on cellular and VOIP users so that if they call 911 emergency services can locate them. Here is a little reading so you may understand E911 better.

 

[hierobryan]

Just a thought - maybe it was the network and not the phone?

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ne_3g_doesnt_suffer_from_faulty_hardware.html

 

[Tosser]

One person has said they were charged for a 911 call. I believe they are incorrect but I could be wrong. If you refer to my previous post it clearly addresses your concern I am quoting.

As for how the money is collected, that is a distinction without a difference. The specific fees associated with E911 have no bearing on whether someone can call 911 it has to do with maintaining information on cellular and VOIP users so that if they call 911 emergency services can locate them. Here is a little reading so you may understand E911 better.

When will you guys get it: I'm not arguing what, say, E911 entails. I'm commenting on how your emergency services are FUNDED. The PRINCIPLE behind it. Hell, they could have invented chips to implant in newborns and having to recuperate that money somehow, and you linking to how those chips would work doesn't matter at all to the discussion. At best it's just you wanting me to understand the technical aspects, at worst, it's an intentional strawman argument.

 

[StoneColdSober]

It isn't? Unless you guys have a society with less or even NO difference between rich and poor, there certainly is a difference.

Okay, now you are just being silly. Does your society provide cell phones to the poor? Do they provide them a means to call 911 other than running to the closest payphone?

I don't know how it is in the UK but in the US any cellular phone manufactured since about 2000 has to have the ability to call 911. As I said in my previous post this is required even of cell phones that are not activated, have no rate plan, or do not have a SIM card in them (if one is required, need to remember those CDMA folk).

So I can give my completely useless phone without a SIM card in it and not associated with an account to a homeless person and as long as it has working battery with a charge and cell coverage they can call 911 AT NO CHARGE.

 

[archesdevil]

This thread screams "Wasteland"

 

[StoneColdSober]

I'm commenting on how your emergency services are FUNDED. The PRINCIPLE behind it.

At best it's just you wanting me to understand the technical aspects, at worst, it's an intentional strawman argument.

Our emergency services are funded just like yours are, through taxes. You are confusing our emergency services with the E911 charge that is added to our monthly bills (if you get a monthly bill). That is why you need to understand what E911 is. It is not a strawman argument, it is integral to you understanding the distinction between 911 and E911 and what the fees charged for E911 are intended to offset.

 

[bluenoise]

Another wrinkle is that cellular 911 calls in California go to the California Highway Patrol dispatch and not the same call centers that landline calls go to. This has no effect on call quality or billing, of course. In my area, the message signs on the freeway urge us to call 911 to report drunk drivers and it would be really stupid to charge callers for reporting these or any other emergencies.

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

Thank your government for the outsourcing to private corporations lobbying

I'd hate to see how inefficient 911 would be if it were run entirely by the government. Thank god for private corporations.

 

[Tosser]

Okay, now you are just being silly. Does your society provide cell phones to the poor? Do they provide them a means to call 911 other than running to the closest payphone?

You are completely ignoring the principles involved.

I don't know how it is in the UK but in the US any cellular phone manufactured since about 2000 has to have the ability to call 911.

I'm not sure how it is in the UK either. I'm a dane, living in Denmark. Here it was before that, but when emergency services was introduced hardly has any bearing on anything.

As I said in my previous post this is required even of cell phones that are not activated, have no rate plan, or do not have a SIM card in them (if one is required, need to remember those CDMA folk).

So I can give my completely useless phone without a SIM card in it and not associated with an account to a homeless person and as long as it has working battery with a charge and cell coverage they can call 911 AT NO CHARGE.

Good. It still doesn't change the fact, that if there is a sim card in it, people will be charged. Call me cynical, but if people are charged, however little, some will hesitate. Even for a dollar or two.

Our emergency services are funded just like yours are, through taxes. You are confusing our emergency services with the E911 charge that is added to our monthly bills (if you get a monthly bill).

Excuse me, but correct me if I'm wrong: Isn't E911 officielly supposed to help in EMERGENCIES, giving your exact location? How on earth do you extract E911 and claim this is not part of the emergency service?

That is why you need to understand what E911 is. It is not a strawman argument, it is integral to you understanding the distinction between 911 and E911 and what the fees charged for E911 are intended to offset.

See above.

Another wrinkle is that cellular 911 calls in California go to the California Highway Patrol dispatch and not the same call centers that landline calls go to. This has no effect on call quality or billing, of course. In my area, the message signs on the freeway urge us to call 911 to report drunk drivers and it would be really stupid to charge callers for reporting these or any other emergencies.

Same here. Cell phones and landlines go to separate call centers. They're working on it, though.

I'd hate to see how inefficient 911 would be if it were run entirely by the government. Thank god for private corporations.

Yes, fortunately I don't live where you live

 

[bluenoise]

You are completely ignoring the principles involved.


I'm not sure how it is in the UK either. I'm a dane, living in Denmark. Here it was before that, but when emergency services was introduced hardly has any bearing on anything.



Good. It still doesn't change the fact, that if there is a sim card in it, people will be charged. Call me cynical, but if people are charged, however little, some will hesitate. Even for a dollar or two.

Where does it say anyone with a sim card is going to get charged? I have a sim card and I've never been charged. Someone even linked to at&t's site saying there is no charge for emergency calls.

 

[StoneColdSober]

Good. It still doesn't change the fact, that if there is a sim card in it, people will be charged. Call me cynical, but if people are charged, however little, some will hesitate. Even for a dollar or two.

Sorry for the mistake on your country, no offense intended.

You keep skipping over my point that people are NOT charged for calling 911. I have seen some reports on municipalities attempting to do that and from everything I have seen they have been shot down. If you refer to my link to the AT&T website, AT&T DOES NOT charge for calls to 911.

The only charge is a recurring monthly charge on a persons cell phone or VOIP bill for E911. You get charged this nominal recovery fee whether you call 911 or not.

 

[daihard]

A bit off-topic, but I've always wondered why the medical system in the U.S. is so screwed up. First, you need to pay in order to call 911. Then you need to pay for the ambulance that comes to rescue you. It's not like you had a choice!

 

[archesdevil]

A bit off-topic, but I've always wondered why the medical system in the U.S. is so screwed up. First, you need to pay in order to call 911. Then you need to pay for the ambulance that comes to rescue you. It's not like you had a choice!

We should hire Chinese ambulances to save money.

 

[Tosser]

Sorry for the mistake on your country, no offense intended.

No offense taken. I was just correcting the slight mistake.

You keep skipping over my point that people are NOT charged for calling 911.

I'm not skipping over it. It's not that many posts ago you acknowledged that OP might be right, but that the fee would come after the call was made.

I have seen some reports on municipalities attempting to do that and from everything I have seen they have been shot down. If you refer to my link to the AT&T website, AT&T DOES NOT charge for calls to 911.

Good. But the OP was apparently charged.

The only charge is a recurring monthly charge on a persons cell phone or VOIP bill for E911. You get charged this nominal recovery fee whether you call 911 or not.

And having them charge a fee every month is somehow making the fee non-existant?

 

[StoneColdSober]

It's not that many posts ago you acknowledged that OP might be right, but that the fee would come after the call was made.

I didn't say the fee would come after the call was made, that wasn't my post. I said if the OP got charged they should call their provider to get it credited as I believe it was an inappropriate charge. As I have pointed out now twice before AT&T does NOT charge for 911 calls.

Good. But the OP was apparently charged.

See above.

And having them charge a fee every month is somehow making the fee non-existant?

It doesn't make it non-existent what it makes it is the same as any taxes that you pay that go towards maintaining the 911 service in your country.

ETA: I wouldn't be surprised if someone got confused and upon reviewing their bill they thought the E911 recovery fee was a charge for calling 911. The fee is very small.