On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Trevor Peirce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sales department wrote: > > What happened to the person is tragic. More importantly it created yet > > another black eye on our industry by that provider not providing 911 > > services. I would not even be surprised to see some sort of criminal > > charges against that provider. > > > Thank you. It's good to see that my personal thoughts are mirrored by at > least a few of you that have replied. When a tragedies like this > continue to happen it looks bad for us all and makes it that much harder > for us to keep and find new business. This is why it's crucial that even > the smallest of providers ensure they do 9-1-1 properly. > > As a direct result of recent news, I've had to explain to my customers > how their 9-1-1 works and explain the steps taken that ensure they will > receive help when they need it. However, as long as other VoIP providers > keep having problems with emergency calls, I, you, and everyone else > will have to convince our customers that *we* aren't going to drop the > ball when it comes to connecting emergency calls. > > As far as this particular incident, I've seen reports that the 9-1-1 > call was answered and the caller was told that an ambulance was > dispatched, although to an old address. The most recent details I've > seen are at http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/02/crtc-voip.html > > My guess is the provider was handling 9-1-1 in-house without properly > trained call takers. I've heard a few 9-1-1 calls and the first thing in > every single one of them was confirmation of the current address (a CRTC > requirement, in fact) which would have prevented this error. In the > calls I've heard the Ambulance Service remains on the line with the > caller until paramedics arrive to make sure they can find the residence. > > With that, I am not going to reply to this thread any more. It seems my > posts upset too many readers who do not share my views on highlighting > failures to underscore the importance of doing things right or educating > smaller providers about options that they can afford to minimize their > risk of harming their customers. > > Best regards, > Trevor Peirce >
Personally, when I advise on or propose a system, I recommend getting at least one POTS line for fax and 911 if the customer is set on using a VoIP solution. Moreover, whenever I turn up or even start servicing an existing system, I call 911 and tell the operator that I am "the telephone guy" and that I wanted to confirm that they have the proper name and address for that number. I am not taking any chances of having to live with a tragedy that I could have prevented by a single test phone call (not to mention the legal ramifications). The operators are ALWAYS very cooperative and I feel much better. I make it a point to do this with the customer present, it shows a high level of "Best Practices". To date out of many many systems, probably six or seven had incorrect information (on TDM PRIs even!) so in reality, I may have averted real world life and death situations. Now that VoIP 911 and VoIP in general is being demanded as the end to end solution by customers, if I cannot sway them to get a POTS line, I would have to feel comfortable in a VoIP provider's ability to handle 911 which would include regular testing. Contrary to Public Enemy, 911 is no joke. Thanks, Steve Totaro _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
