[82616] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 911, was You're all over thinking this (was: Re: Vonage Selects TCS For VoIP E911 Service)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Corlett)
Mon Jul 25 05:56:22 2005
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: abuse@cabal.org.uk (Peter Corlett)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:55:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: news@cabal.org.uk
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
[...]
> Given that we're talking about cell phones, it seems completely
> likely. Cell phones present the dialed number as a block, so there's
> no ambiguity between 911 and 911XXXXX. I don't know whether UK cell
> carriers map 911 to 112, but there's no technical reason they can't
> do so.
If people expect 911 to work on mobile phones, they will also expect
it to work on the PSTN.
<rant> And why should the UK change its numbering system just because
a few dumb Yanks who can't be bothered to learn local customs? Does
999 get through to the emergency services in the NANP? Does 112 work
on non-GSM phones? How about Australia's 000? </rant>
> I agree that for VoIP using normal phones through adapters, 911 in
> the UK won't work.
ATAs usually collect digits to send as a block as well, either with
the user explicitly dialling # after the number, or implicitly after a
timeout. At least that's what I see with Cisco ATA-186, 7940 and 7960
and the Sipura 2000 I've tested.
--
It can't go any lower? Last time I checked, the minimum value of a traded
security is $0.00.
- H. Preisman, on Nortel dropping to $20 a share
