actually, my concern is similar. Many of my clients put a phone at their home office. If someone picked up the phone, dialled 911 on that set, it would show the office line... I've got 911 programmed where I think of it to reflect what the home phone number is otherwise, callerid shows office line. This will cuase me to go back and check every client remote installation to verify it's doing what I think it should D.
Dave Bour Desktop Solution Center 905.381.0077 X501 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For people who just want IT to work Business http://www.desktopsolutioncenter.ca Personal http://www.davebour.com > -----Original Message----- > From: David Steele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 12:17 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Toronto Asterisk UG > Subject: Re: [on-asterisk] 911 tragedy in Calgary reveals perils of > VoIP > > Hi Stephan, > > I'm not certain, but it seems from your description that you are using > a > third-party 911 verification service similar to Northern 911? As far > as I > can see, if such a service was used by the VoIP provider in this > Calgary > incident the address verification that you mention would have occurred > prior > to routing the call to a PSAP. > > The thing that I'm not certain about from your description is that I > don't > believe that third-party companies such as Northern 911 make decisions > about > police or ambulance: their job is just to get the call to the correct > PSAP, > where the actual 911 operator will make a determination about service > requirements. I could have this wrong for the case of hangups or > callers > that can't speak. > > As for calling back the number on file in the event of a hangup: are > you > certain that the third-party 911 provider is even allowed to do this? > I can > think of scenarios (e.g.: domestic abuse) where the last thing that I > would > want was the 911 operator calling me back just to check that they had > the > right number. It could be that the third-party call center is mandated > not > to call back. Again, I'm speaking through my hat on this. > > Getting back to the incident on hand - if the VoIP provider in this > instance > had used a third-party address verification service such as Northern > 911 I > can't see how this could have occurred. If I'm missing a layer of > complexity here I would appreciate someone pointing it out. > > Disclaimer: I used Northern 911 in my last job, but don't own any > shares ;) > > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Stephan Monette > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Hey everyone, > > > > Does ComWave have their own call center for 911 services or do they > > sub-contract another call center for 911 services like most Canadian > VoIP > > providers? > > > > Our 911 call center treats the 911 calls like this: > > > > 1- First, all 911 calls are recorded and review if there's any issues > or > > dispute later on. > > > > 2- 911 agent receives the call and ask the user what is needed: fire, > > ambulance or security. > > > > 3- Meanwhile, the 911 agent reads the address displayed on their > computer > > screen. > > > > 4- Once the user specify what they need, the agent confirms the > address > > before dispatching the proper service to the user (to make sure they > send > > the service to the right address). This step only takes a few > seconds. If > > there's no address on the screen, the 911 agent will ask the user for > the > > exact address and this will take longer to connect the call. > > > > So in this case with the family from Calgary, the 911 agent would > have > > confirmed the address with the user before dispatching the ambulance. > > Hopefully, the user knows the family civic address and is able to > > communicate it to the 911 agent. If the 911 agent cannot confirm the > address > > with the user, the agent will send the ambulance to the registered > address > > from the database (last known good address). > > > > If the 911 agent never asked to confirmed the address with the caller > > before dispatching the ambulance, the phone company may be held > liable for > > this negligence with their 911 procedure (this is just my personal > > opinion!). But hopefully, they have recorded the 911 call and show > exactly > > how the call was handled. > > > > 5- If the user can't communicate, the dispatcher will send the police > to > > the address in the database (last known good address). > > > > One issue I have with my current 911 call center (same as everyone > else by > > the way) is if they receive a 911 call and the call gets > disconnected, the > > agent will send the police to the address on file. This is fine but I > would > > rather want to confirm by calling back the user and cancel the police > > dispatch if this was an error. The Agent never calls back the phone > number > > on the display. > > > > Same thing happens when the 911 agent receives a call with no address > on > > the screen and the call gets disconnected, the 911 Agent contacts our > > customer service to get the address instead of calling back the user > from > > the number on the callerid. This procedure is very lengthy. > > > > This procedure creates huge delay and I wish the 911 call center > would > > change their procedures regarding disconnected calls. I wish they > would call > > back the number on the callerid to confirm if everything is OK and if > the > > user needs any assistance. The 911 agent should call our customer > service > > only as the last resort if they do not get any answer when calling > back the > > user. > > > > We do ask our customers to register their address for each number, > but > > most of them don't bother and it's a scary thought. > > > > Maybe we should all get together (VoIP providers) and put pressure > with > > our 911 call center to modify their procedures. > > > > Any thought? > > > > Stephan Monette > > Unlimitel Inc. > > > > Tel.: 613-688-6212. x221 > > TF : 1-877-464-6638, x221 > > FAX : 613-482-1077 > > > > > > Dave Bour wrote: > > > > > There's two things here that could have helped. > > > 1. Database linkage of billing address to emergency address. Had > that > > > changed, it would or should raise a flag to investigate. > > > 2. GeoIP tracking has been around for a long time. The registrar > could > > > again have a flag to pick up such....granted if someone moves two > blocks, > > > not likely this would have helped. In this case, a cross country > move could > > > have been picked by a GeoIP flag. > > > So this raises a question though about liability and such for voice > > > services providers. Where do we stand. How much insurance should > we have? > > > > > > Dave Bour > > > Desktop Solution Center > > > 905.381.0077 X501 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > For people who just want IT to work > > > > > > Business http://www.desktopsolutioncenter.ca > > > Personal http://www.davebour.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Bill Sandiford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 1:29 AM > > > > To: Dave Bour > > > > Subject: Re: [on-asterisk] 911 tragedy in Calgary reveals perils > of > > > > VoIP > > > > > > > > This has already happened a few times in the US. If my memory > serves > > > > me > > > > correctly, Vonage has (had) law suits against them in Florida and > > > > Texas > > > > for > > > > 911 issues. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Dave Bour" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "Ansar Mohammed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 11:40 PM > > > > Subject: RE: [on-asterisk] 911 tragedy in Calgary reveals perils > of > > > > VoIP > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondered how long this would take. Going to be a lot of noise > over > > > > this > > > > one. > > > > D. > > > > > > > > Dave Bour > > > > Desktop Solution Center > > > > 905.381.0077 X501 > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > For people who just want IT to work > > > > > > > > Business http://www.desktopsolutioncenter.ca > > > > Personal http://www.davebour.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Ansar Mohammed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 11:39 PM > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Subject: [on-asterisk] 911 tragedy in Calgary reveals perils of > VoIP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "TORONTO AND CALGARY - An ambulance was dispatched in response > to a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 911 > > > > > > > > > > > > > call > > > > > about a toddler in distress, but the Internet phone service > said > > > > > paramedics > > > > > went to the address it had on file - a home in Mississauga - > not the > > > > > new > > > > > home in Calgary where the distraught family waited in vain for > > > > > help." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080501.wphone02/BN > > > > > > > > > > > > > Story > > > > > /National/?page=rss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080501.wphone02/B > > > > > > > > > > > > > NStor > > > > > y/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080501.wphone02> > > > > > &id=RTGAM.20080501.wphone02 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > _______________________________ > David Steele > > <insert sig line witticism here> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
