8 ms·

This is super important. In an emergency you don't necessarily have time to learn how to dial out. For VOIP solutions that often come with the "don't call 911

by nxc18 9y ago

This is super important. In an emergency you don't necessarily have time to learn how to dial out. For VOIP solutions that often come with the "don't call 911 it won't work" caveat. That isn't good enough. In fact, maybe the FCC should take the position that mishandling these calls by VoIP systems is equivalent to blocking/impeding them. E.g. its bad practice (and I think illegal) for a cell phone to be inoperable for emergency calls while locked.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wlesieutre 9y ago
On the cell phone note, you don't even need to pay for cell service. If your phone can connect to a cell tower you can dial 911. They may not be able to dial you back if your call gets disconnected, on account of your phone not having a phone number. I'm not sure how that works.
cm2187 9y ago
Hum. 99% of users in a large company have a mobile phone. Feels a bit like a corner case problem.
- sageabilly 9y ago
  If the building is on fire in an area with no cell service (like the basement) and the only phone is VoIP, it becomes an everyone problem pretty darn fast.
  - mikeyouse 9y ago
    It's astounding to me how easily people shrug off 'corner case problems'. Some things need to work in every case, and many complex systems have to be designed to accommodate every 'corner'. "How much cheaper would buses be if they didn't need to be wheel-chair accessible? Surely 99% of people don't have wheel-chairs." "Our nuclear power plant is designed to withstand a 10M tsunami, nearly all of the earthquakes and tsunamis in the past hundred years have been smaller than that."
    - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
      > "How much cheaper would buses be if they didn't need to be wheel-chair accessible? Surely 99% of people don't have wheel-chairs." If buses would be so much cheaper that special wheel-chair accessible vans could be provided instead then maybe that's a case that should be shrugged-off. Are you really surprised or are you just expressing outrage that other people make different tradeoffs than you do? Even in the nuclear power plant case you mention it's not obvious that it would be better to design every nuclear power plant to withstand disasters that have not occurred in the past one hundred years especially if the alternative is, e.g. a coal-fired power plant.
      - DamonHD 9y ago
        No, it should not be "shrugged off": it could be carefully considered and a better alternative provided, as you suggested. "Shrugged off" implies that problems that don't apply to you personally are not important, and that attitude or even its apparent presence cause a huge chunk of the world's problems at root...
      - mikeyouse 9y ago
        I really am surprised how so many 'solutions' to 'obvious' problems are really just methods to ignore the difficult parts. It's pervasive, especially on Reddit/HN type forums and with charlatan politicians and their supporters. If the solutions were easy, they would have been figured out by now. We live in a highly engineered world but people constantly ignore all nuance. Another example I saw recently was this crazy outrage that Whole Foods was selling pre-peeled oranges in plastic containers. They were contacting corporate offices and trying to shame WF for their waste. Nobody stopped to think that maybe people have different levels of manual dexterity and that the elderly or disabled people might enjoy a fresh orange too. Nearly all of the challenge in design lies in the corner case.
      - ryandrake 9y ago
        I'd highly recommend every software engineer to spend a little time in their career working on safety critical applications. Medical devices, avionics and automotive, anything related to emergency-911 services, etc. The attitude towards risk, tradeoffs, edge cases and defect prioritization is different than it is at your usual "build fast & break stuff" circus. It can be eye opening.
- msla 9y ago
  That's OK. This is about emergency services, and emergencies are, by definition, corner cases.
- koenigdavidmj 9y ago
  My work phone is a VoIP device. Sits on my desk, looks exactly like a phone, has a handset with a curly cable, and can call real phone numbers. The fact that it's actually a VoIP phone has no bearing on my actual usage of it. Therefore, I expect that when I dial 911 (or at least 9-911) on it, it does the right thing.
- tjohns 9y ago
  That creates a different problem, which is also dangerous. In a large company, you want physical security to know when there's an emergency. They can usually get to the scene much, much quicker, and will need to let emergency services into the building anyway. With landline corporate phones, they can be configured so that if the user direct dials 911, they can flag the extension and flash an alarm in the security office. Hotels often have a similar setup. (Avaya calls it "On-Site Notification", Cisco calls it "Cisco Emergency Responder".) If employees/guests are direct dialing 911 from a cell phone, building security has no idea what's going on.
  - tomswartz07 9y ago
    This is exactly the case. Further, the parent comment is ignoring certain companies and agencies that explicitly prohibit cell phones on site.
  - Aloha 9y ago
    Some older PBXen trap 911 and send it to the attendant or another pre-designated extension.
- nradov 9y ago
  That doesn't apply to any government contractor dealing with classified information. For example, many Lockheed Martin employees aren't allowed to bring a mobile phone past the security checkpoint.
MrRadar 9y ago
Aren't VOIP systems already required to support 911? I know I pay a $1.50/month fee for 911 service on my home VOIP line.
- tjohns 9y ago
  Not all. Computer-based services like Skype often don't support calling 911, even though they can call other landlines. (They're pretty clear about this when you sign up for an account.) I have an ObiHai box at home that lets me use Google Voice as a my landline VoIP provider for free. However, I still have to pay a second SIP provider about $15/year just for 911 access.
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    The requirement is that only interconnected two way calling requires this. Skype sells separate in and out products, so they aren't two-way. Yeah, I know.

by nxc18 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

wlesieutre 9y ago

On the cell phone note, you don't even need to pay for cell service. If your phone can connect to a cell tower you can dial 911. They may not be able to dial you back if your call gets disconnected, on account of your phone not having a phone number. I'm not sure how that works.

cm2187 9y ago

Hum. 99% of users in a large company have a mobile phone. Feels a bit like a corner case problem.

sageabilly 9y ago
If the building is on fire in an area with no cell service (like the basement) and the only phone is VoIP, it becomes an everyone problem pretty darn fast.
- mikeyouse 9y ago
  It's astounding to me how easily people shrug off 'corner case problems'. Some things need to work in every case, and many complex systems have to be designed to accommodate every 'corner'. "How much cheaper would buses be if they didn't need to be wheel-chair accessible? Surely 99% of people don't have wheel-chairs." "Our nuclear power plant is designed to withstand a 10M tsunami, nearly all of the earthquakes and tsunamis in the past hundred years have been smaller than that."
  - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
    > "How much cheaper would buses be if they didn't need to be wheel-chair accessible? Surely 99% of people don't have wheel-chairs." If buses would be so much cheaper that special wheel-chair accessible vans could be provided instead then maybe that's a case that should be shrugged-off. Are you really surprised or are you just expressing outrage that other people make different tradeoffs than you do? Even in the nuclear power plant case you mention it's not obvious that it would be better to design every nuclear power plant to withstand disasters that have not occurred in the past one hundred years especially if the alternative is, e.g. a coal-fired power plant.
    - DamonHD 9y ago
      No, it should not be "shrugged off": it could be carefully considered and a better alternative provided, as you suggested. "Shrugged off" implies that problems that don't apply to you personally are not important, and that attitude or even its apparent presence cause a huge chunk of the world's problems at root...
    - mikeyouse 9y ago
      I really am surprised how so many 'solutions' to 'obvious' problems are really just methods to ignore the difficult parts. It's pervasive, especially on Reddit/HN type forums and with charlatan politicians and their supporters. If the solutions were easy, they would have been figured out by now. We live in a highly engineered world but people constantly ignore all nuance. Another example I saw recently was this crazy outrage that Whole Foods was selling pre-peeled oranges in plastic containers. They were contacting corporate offices and trying to shame WF for their waste. Nobody stopped to think that maybe people have different levels of manual dexterity and that the elderly or disabled people might enjoy a fresh orange too. Nearly all of the challenge in design lies in the corner case.
    - ryandrake 9y ago
      I'd highly recommend every software engineer to spend a little time in their career working on safety critical applications. Medical devices, avionics and automotive, anything related to emergency-911 services, etc. The attitude towards risk, tradeoffs, edge cases and defect prioritization is different than it is at your usual "build fast & break stuff" circus. It can be eye opening.
msla 9y ago
That's OK. This is about emergency services, and emergencies are, by definition, corner cases.
koenigdavidmj 9y ago
My work phone is a VoIP device. Sits on my desk, looks exactly like a phone, has a handset with a curly cable, and can call real phone numbers. The fact that it's actually a VoIP phone has no bearing on my actual usage of it. Therefore, I expect that when I dial 911 (or at least 9-911) on it, it does the right thing.
tjohns 9y ago
That creates a different problem, which is also dangerous. In a large company, you want physical security to know when there's an emergency. They can usually get to the scene much, much quicker, and will need to let emergency services into the building anyway. With landline corporate phones, they can be configured so that if the user direct dials 911, they can flag the extension and flash an alarm in the security office. Hotels often have a similar setup. (Avaya calls it "On-Site Notification", Cisco calls it "Cisco Emergency Responder".) If employees/guests are direct dialing 911 from a cell phone, building security has no idea what's going on.
- tomswartz07 9y ago
  This is exactly the case. Further, the parent comment is ignoring certain companies and agencies that explicitly prohibit cell phones on site.
- Aloha 9y ago
  Some older PBXen trap 911 and send it to the attendant or another pre-designated extension.
nradov 9y ago
That doesn't apply to any government contractor dealing with classified information. For example, many Lockheed Martin employees aren't allowed to bring a mobile phone past the security checkpoint.

MrRadar 9y ago

Aren't VOIP systems already required to support 911? I know I pay a $1.50/month fee for 911 service on my home VOIP line.

tjohns 9y ago
Not all. Computer-based services like Skype often don't support calling 911, even though they can call other landlines. (They're pretty clear about this when you sign up for an account.) I have an ObiHai box at home that lets me use Google Voice as a my landline VoIP provider for free. However, I still have to pay a second SIP provider about $15/year just for 911 access.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  The requirement is that only interconnected two way calling requires this. Skype sells separate in and out products, so they aren't two-way. Yeah, I know.