ITU To Choose Emergency Line For Mobiles: 911, or 112?

First time accepted submitter maijc writes "The International Telecommunication Union will determine the standard emergency phone numbers for new generations of mobile phones and other devices. AP reports that member states have agreed that either 911 or 112 should be designated as emergency phone numbers. 911 is currently used in North America, while 112 is standard across the EU and in many other countries worldwide."

Comments

Why not both?

[crazyjj]

I imagine it would be technically trivial to simply require that *both* numbers link to emergency services. It would be easy to do, and would make things a lot safer for visitors in either America or Europe who may only be familiar with one or the other.

Easy peasy, and no argument needed.

Of course, this is the U.N. we're talking about here, so OF COURSE there will be an argument. And it will no doubt break down fairly quickly into an old-resentment pissing contest between Europe and America, with both sides engaging in increasingly hyperbolic rhetoric and the end result being both sides telling the other to sod off. It will probably be considered a success if four additional numbers don't get proposed by countries who hate the West in general.
 

Re:Why not both?

[Maximum Prophet]

This.

Although from what I've learned from BBC television shows, the British use 999, so I doubt 911 & 112 is an exhaustive list. Still, why not have a dozen emergency phone numbers?

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Also may help with getting to someone that speaks your language on the FIRST try which, y'know, might be important in an emergency.

Also, do you have two reflective vests in the cabin of your vehicle? No? MASSIVE FINE. Thanks France.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine it would be technically trivial to simply require that *both* numbers link to emergency services.

Indeed, here in the UK both 112 & 999 work. I'm not sure why 999 isn't being considered in with 911 & 112?

Re:Why not both?

[squiggleslash]

GSM already standardizes on 112 (even in North America - obviously you can also dial your local emergency number too, so 911 works here), and I don't believe the fat fingering issue you raise has been a problem at all.

Re:Why not both?

[Torin Darkflight]

I agree, it would be best for both to be used as emergency numbers. It shouldn't be technically difficult to set it up so that the system automatically forwards calls to 911 if someone dials 112, or vice-versa. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, I've read previously that some GSM providers already do this.

However, if I had to pick one and ONLY one...I would choose 911 simply because you'd be less likely to accidentally dial it, albeit only slightly (I've heard stories about dispatchers receiving butt-dial 911 calls from cell phones). But, it is more difficult to accidentally fat-finger dial 911 as opposed to 112 since 9 and 1 are on opposite corners of the keypad, while 1 and 2 are right next to each other.

Re:Why not both?

[MrDoh!]

yeah, both would seem to be sensible. Those numbers aren't used for anything else are they? So why not make them both activate the emergency services.

Re:Why not both?

[CanHasDIY]

I imagine it would be technically trivial to simply require that *both* numbers link to emergency services. It would be easy to do, and would make things a lot safer for visitors in either America or Europe who may only be familiar with one or the other.

^ This.

End of discussion.

Re:Why not both?

[ggeens]

I imagine it would be technically trivial to simply require that *both* numbers link to emergency services. It would be easy to do, and would make things a lot safer for visitors in either America or Europe who may only be familiar with one or the other.

AFAIK, phone switches already do that. I'm pretty sure I can dial 100 (emergency number for landlines over here) on my cell phone and ask to send an ambulance over. I think the old emergency number (900 - removed about 20 years ago) still works.

I wouldn't surprise me if 911 also works.

(Not tested - I prefer not to pay a fine for abusing those numbers.)

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK added 112 as an alternative many years ago, so while 999 is the popularly ingrained emergency number there would be no problem in the UK with a phone having 112 as the default emergency number.

Re:Why not both?

[Chrisq]

GSM already standardizes on 112 (even in North America - obviously you can also dial your local emergency number too, so 911 works here), and I don't believe the fat fingering issue you raise has been a problem at all.

Indeed, misdialing is only a minor problem with the UK 999

Re:Why not both?

[SJHillman]

I think having three of the same digit is a problem with accidental dials... be it small children playing with a phone or pocket dialing a cell phone.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

Although from what I've learned from BBC television shows, the British use 999, so I doubt 911 & 112 is an exhaustive list. Still, why not have a dozen emergency phone numbers?

You can also use 112 in the UK.

Re:Why not both?

[wvmarle]

My phone is doing just that already. When I key in either '112' or '911' it displays 'emergency call' (just tried; of course without making the actual call). Interestingly '999' (the actual emergency call number here) is not recognised. Probably because I'm using a UK-origin Android version on my phone.

Actually I wonder: why is there a number for emergency calls from mobiles? Why can't the mobile phone just tell the network "this is an emergency call, please put me through to the local emergency call centre". Then the phone can link one or more numbers to that. It is already so that if there is no SIM in the phone or you're out of reach of your network, as long as there is any network available you can use it for emergency calls.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

For two, most switches use the first digit being a "1" to denote the beginning of a long distance call.

In the US perhaps, it's mostly 0 in Europe from what I've seen.

Going with '112' breaks a perfectly good standard in a country that at least has a standard phone number format.

Going with '911' breaks a perfectly good standard in multiple countries that already agreed on a standard phone number format.

Ah well, http://xkcd.com/927/ right?

Re:Why not both?

[FireFury03]

most switches use the first digit being a "1" to denote the beginning of a long distance call.

Untrue. In most (but not all) of the world, the international dialing prefix is 00

And in the UK, the prefix 0 denotes a non-local call (i.e. outside your own STD code) whilst 1 usually denotes a service local to your specific telco (customer services, etc) although there are exceptions to this, such as the 118xxx numbers for directory enquiries. Numbers starting 2-9 are local (within your STD code) except for 999 (emergency services).

Going with '112' breaks a perfectly good standard in a country that at least has a standard phone number format.

The problem with this attitude is that mobile standards are international, and there are numerous countries with standard domestic number formats that are not the same as the US's. Unfortunately, the US attitude always seems to be to disagree with any international standardisation process rather than reach a compromise (I think anyone who has worked on the international telephone network protocols will agree with this - most of the ANSI protocols are different to the ITU recommendations for no reason other than to be different)

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I thought the emergency number in the UK was 0118 999 881 999 119 7253 or at least that is what I saw on a TV show!

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

I once had a nice, shiny â112â(TM) on my display when taking my phone out of my pocket, that would never have happened back when emergency calls required unlocking the keys. I think that standard matters more than the actual keys one has to press by accident.
Back in the days of rotary dials, the emergency number in Sweden was 90000 to make it harder for children to place calls whilst playing.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mistakingly assuming that today people will call the emergency number instead of using the phone to record everything, you know, not to get more visitors on youtube, but for evidence, yeah, evidence.

By the way, what's the point of standards across countries anyway? I mean, how many Americans visiting some foreign country will know something else other than English?

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

All European countries, as well as others like Australia and New Zealand have already added 112 to their systems as a second number. Equality and sense would indicate having it added to a system that only uses 911.
It's quite simple for people then - in their own country they dial XXX, and at the airport you tell them "in other countries use 112 instead of XXX". They don't need to know it works in their country so they won't get all "burning our flag"...

Re:Why not both?

[sribe]

Of course, this is the U.N. we're talking about here, so OF COURSE there will be an argument.

Yes, and to any skilled politician the answer is blindingly obvious, compromise on 512, the average--except of course that leaves room to argue that it should be rounded down to 511 instead of up ;-)

(You think I'm kidding? Why do you think the packet length in ATM is 48 instead of 32 or 64? Yep, the average of two competing proposals over length...)

Re:Why not both?

[hduff]

I imagine it would be technically trivial to simply require that *both* numbers link to emergency services. It would be easy to do, and would make things a lot safer for visitors in either America or Europe who may only be familiar with one or the other.

Easy peasy, and no argument needed.

>

Done in one.

My God, both a first post and a reasonable response. What is the world coming to?

But please /.'ers, don't let that stop you from arguing since the world ends in 9 days.

Re:Why not both?

[azalin]

Back in the old days some countries used 111, which could very easily dialed accidentally by clicking the receiver contact a few times (rotary pulse dial phones).

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're saying is true for america but in europe you could say the exact same thing about 911. At least in Sweden, NO phone number start with "1" (because when Sweden changed from "90 000" to "112" LOTS of people got the initial "1" in their local phone numbers changed to another digit..)

However, "most switches use the first digit being a "1" to denote the beginning of a long distance call" would not be an issue, in the long run. If 112 was properly standardized, all of your systems would either let 112 override everything else (and never trigger a long distance call). Also, if I understand the NA number plan, there are no valid numbers that starts with 11, right?

I'm assuming the problem with Indian phone numbers are their mobile numbers? Their landline numbers are organized pretty much exactly like Sweden's. Their mobile numbers seems like a mess though.

Re:Why not both?

[ArsenneLupin]

I imagine it would be technically trivial to simply require that *both* numbers link to emergency services. It would be easy to do, and would make things a lot safer for visitors in either America or Europe who may only be familiar with one or the other.

Sensible idea alert. If you actually dared to speak this out during one of those meetings, security would show up before you had finished your sentence, and escort you out of the door. How dare you shortcuts hours of "collegial" small talk about phone numbers by solving the problem with one small but brilliant idea. After all, the purpose of these meetings is to drag on and on and on, while outside the window the seasons go by (all 4 of them...), and to waste as much otherwise productive work time of highly paid representatives as possible. But let's look at the bright side of this: as long as you've got your laptop with you, this is an excellent opportunity to catch on on any documentation work that you may have to do for other projects, all the while charging your time on ITU...

Re:Why not both?

[ArsenneLupin]

You can also use 112 in the UK.

But that only works if you hold your phone in your left hand...

Re:Why not both?

[vmlemon]

In fact, at least with GSM, and UMTS-based handsets, when you dial the local emergency services number, the number itself isn't actually dialled. Instead, a call with a specific "Emergency" flag is made, and the network deals with routing appropriately.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you own my crappy LG phone. Butt dialing 911 is possible even with the keypad LOCKED! If the 9 key gets pressed, it doesn't matter if it's a whole minute later that the 1 key gets hit a couple times. Even if you hit every other key half a dozen times in the process.

On top of that, just holding down the 9 key is a speed dial for emergency calls - even with the keypad locked. I had to set the speed dial manually to my own phone number to get that to stop happening.

I think I've had 10-15 accidental emergency calls since I got the phone, but it hasn't happened in months now that I've finally found out about the speed dial.

Re:Why not both?

[Alcimedes]

The first digit being a "1" for long distance is only true in the US. When you come up with the phone system, of course you give your country the first country code.

Re:Why not both?

[ArsenneLupin]

Also, do you have two reflective vests in the cabin of your vehicle? No? MASSIVE FINE. Thanks France.

The vests are for all of Europe. France are the officially-sanctioned one-time alcohol-detection penii, which you need to have in your car at all times, so that you can blow them in case you're wondering whether you're still sober enough to drive. Of course, there is only one company manufacturing these, they quadrupled the price since they became mandatory, and are now making much dough over this. I wonder whether someone within the French administration has been nicely rewarded by the company for this windfall?

Re:Why not both?

[Z00L00K]

I would vote for 90000.

Re:Why not both?

[jawtheshark]

Belgium, eh? ;-)

Re:Why not both?

[azalin]

The point is with a mobile phone you sometimes don't know which network you'll be connecting to. It might even be a foreign network if you're near a boarder. This works nicely and in a standard way (it might not be your phone you're using) with a common number (or set of numbers). Otherwise you would need an "Emergency" Icon (which language) or button on the phone, that had to be unremovable, prominent and not to easily buttdialable.
In my opinion having a one or two emergency numbers to call is the best solution.

Re:Why not both?

[Megane]

Yes, and to any skilled politician the answer is blindingly obvious, compromise on 512, the average--except of course that leaves room to argue that it should be rounded down to 511 instead of up ;-)

Living in Austin, TX, I can say that would be... interesting. Especially since we're getting a new overlay area code in 2013, so we'll be forced to do 9-digit dialing (or will it be 10-digit dialing?), and have to punch in 512 for every local call. Well, except to new numbers from the new area code, that is.

Re:Why not both?

[blackm0k]

Going with '112' breaks a perfectly good standard in a country that at least has a standard phone number format. Try calling India sometime for an example of what a lack of phone number format standards can cause.

So everywhere else in the world should break their standard for the sake of the US? Implementing both seems the only really sensible route.

Re:Why not both?

[plover]

Using "1" as a trunk code in North America is almost meaningless these days. Digital switches route calls based on all the digits, they no longer have to be directed to find a trunk line before passing the rest of the digits through. I wouldn't be overly surprised if there are still a few local exchanges in the remote corners of America that still use electromechanical relays or really old ESS switches that need the "1" prefix for accessing a trunk line, but most networks can and will simply route any ten digit number to the correct destination without complaint.

"Dial '1' for long distance" these days is little more than a 'courtesy' reminder to people that "we will charge you extra money for this call because we've convinced Congress and the FCC that long distance calls still cost us extra money." In reality, those charges represent exactly the reasons that most people abandon their PSTN carriers and switch to digital phone carriers. I'd still be using the traditional wires (and paying the traditional phone company) if my local carrier hadn't stuck an unwanted "long distance access fee" on my bill after I discontinued long distance service.

Regarding "standards to reduce confusion", there are three standards for emergencies: 911, 112, and 000, and they all depend on where you came from and what you learned. If implementing them costs nothing, and there are no collisions in the network, supporting them all reduces confusion during emergencies - the one thing in an emergency situation that you don't want.

Re:Why not both?

[demonlapin]

Dialing 1 for long distance is actually something that goes farther than the country code. Until about twenty years ago calls within an area code did not require you to dial the area code, but you did have to dial a 1 for long distance. The requirement for always using the area code was phased in after that. I do recall being in DC and calling from National Airport to a hotel or something - because the airport is in Virginia (different area code), you had to dial the area code to connect to DC, but it was billed as a local call, no 1 needed.

Re:Why not both?

[unami]

afaik 911 works in most european countries. not sure about the U.S. - but you're right - it's not like this standard has any relevance in a technical sense - why not standardize both? maybe the u.n. has some "emergency call" - poster prinzed in english, they want to use worldwide?

Re:Why not both?

[mcgrew]

I imagine it would be technically trivial to simply require that *both* numbers link to emergency services.

In Illinois they're rolling out 211, only not as an emergency number. 211 now links you to non-emergency government services like food stamps, etc.

Re:Why not both?

[WillerZ]

It might even be a foreign network if you're near a boarder.

If you're going to be connected to the emergency services of the wrong country anyway, I would say you have bigger problems than which number to dial.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, this is the U.N. we're talking about here

No, it is not. It is the ITU. It predates the UN by 80 years.

But why don't you go off on a rant anyway.

Re:Why not both?

[cwebster]

There are no 12x area codes in the US, and switches are plenty smart enough to distinguish +1 yyy npa-nxx from 112. And furthermore, this is a mobile standard, and no-one dials US country code for long distance calls on mobile, its just yyy npa-nxx. You dont dial the 1 or +1 unless you are outside of NA and need to call back into the US (or just overly pedantic).

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

I kind of miss 90 000. Yelling "Call ninety thousand!" sounded a lot more dramatic than "Call one one two!" :)

Re:Why not both?

[kelemvor4]

Also, do you have two reflective vests in the cabin of your vehicle? No? MASSIVE FINE. Thanks France.

The vests are for all of Europe. France are the officially-sanctioned one-time alcohol-detection penii, which you need to have in your car at all times, so that you can blow them in case you're wondering whether you're still sober enough to drive. Of course, there is only one company manufacturing these, they quadrupled the price since they became mandatory, and are now making much dough over this. I wonder whether someone within the French administration has been nicely rewarded by the company for this windfall?

You shouldn't be wondering whether it happened or not, but who it happened to.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you dial 112 in America, it should totally connect to an emergency line with a person with a European accent.

Re:Why not both?

[w_dragon]

So you think Canada and most of the Caribbean countries are part of the US then?

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Although the exact amount of zeroes after the nine was not that important in the later AXE-systems.

It is worth remembering that swedish rotary phones have the zero before the nine, making it the quickest to dial. The initial nine would mean you have to go the full turn, but the following zeroes would be quick and effortless.

Unlike "foreign" phones that place the zero after the nine, making it the slowest to dial of them all.

Re:Why not both?

[Gmooron]

It has been announced that this law will be revoked. Besides, it has actually never been enforced because there was not enough supply.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in that case, 911 and 90000 would be sort of related, since the 1 is the quickest to dial on a NA rotary phone.

Re:Why not both?

[Chrisje]

The Wiki for emergency lines per country has 124 hits on 112 in the list of supported emergency numbers, while 911 is only mentioned 54 times.

Quite a few nations in Africa and the Middle East have their own emergency numbers, but route both 112 and 911 to emergency services already.

Having said that, it seems that world-wide there is a larger population of people that use 112 than 911, so the obvious choice would be 112.

But all things being equal and the US being what they are, either 911 will be shoved down everyone's throat, or they will happily ignore a choice of 112.

This whole discussion could be side-stepped by simply choosing something like 951 or 159. It cuts diagonally across the keyboard, is not easily pressed accidentally and is not in use by anyone at present.

Re:Why not both?

[evilbessie]

No we don't do that. Long distance is usually another country so you use the international prefix in whatever country you are in. In the UK it'd be a 00 (of the + on your phone) don't know what it is elsewhere.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, as far as the ITU and NANPA are concerned http://www.nanpa.com/

"The North American Numbering Plan (NANP) is an integrated telephone numbering plan serving 20 North American countries that share its resources. These countries include the United States and its territories, Canada, Bermuda, Anguilla, Antigua & Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, Sint Maarten, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Turks & Caicos."
"The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) assigned country code "1" to the NANP area. The NANP conforms with ITU Recommendation E.164, the international standard for telephone numbering plans."

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

All rotary phones in Sweden have the 0 before the 1, making the 0 quickest to dial. 0 gives one click. 1 gives two clicks ... and so on. And all area codes begin with a 0 followed by one to three digits.

Special numbers reachable in all area codes begin with 1, such as 118xxx for directory enquiry services, 11414 for police (when not life threatening).

Before the 112 number was implementet in 1996 (replacing the old 90000), some people who had phone numbers begining with 11 where issued new numbers with a few digits changed or added.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume that is how it will happen. Any country with a non-standard number will introduce the standard number while also keeping their own.

We introduced 112 here a few years ago, but 999 continues to work too. They just route to the same place.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is 0 in Germany.

Re:Why not both?

[jones_supa]

Grammar fix: I guess that's supposed to be "but to whom it happened".

Re:Why not both?

[ellep]

The best part of the alcohol thingies is that if you do decide to use the one in your car to check your ability to drive, you are then breaking the law, as you will be driving without a (unused) alcohol thingie in your car.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try calling India sometime for an example of what a lack of phone number format standards can cause

BS.

Calling to India from outside is straightforward. International Dialing Prefix (that depends on the calling country) + Country code + 10-digit phone number. the 10 digits include STD code (area code in American terminology) and the phone number within the area.

Calling outside local area from any Indian phone number is straightforward as well. 0+10-digits for long distance. 00+country code+phone number for international. 000+planet code for interplanetary seems like a logical extension. but I digress.

The point is, Indian system for non-local calls is more intuitive than US system of 1+10digits for long distance and 011+country code+phone number.

Now, calling local numbers in India sure is a pain. Depending on how big the city/village is, the numbers can be anywhere between 5-8 digits long. And all mobile numbers are 10 digits long.

Re:Why not both?

[ibwolf]

You dont dial the 1 or +1 unless you are outside of NA and need to call back into the US (or just overly pedantic).

Why wouldn't you? Obviously you're not going to dial +1 if you are manually entering the number in the cellphone, but most calls are made using pre-entered contacts. I find it very convenient to enter all number starting with +CountryCode. That way I don't have to mess around with the contacts on my phone when traveling.

Re:Why not both?

[ArsenneLupin]

Even worse, if you are stopped by police, they will have you blow into your own thing, and even if it doesn't show any alcool content in your breath, you still get a fine as you now no longer have one (unless you were smart enough to have 2. But most motorists aren't that foresighted)

Re:Why not both?

[The_mad_linguist]

That's actually implemented in a lot of places in the EU.

There are a lot of European idiots who dial 911 because they saw it in a Hollywood movie.

Re:Why not both?

[demonbug]

I usually don't use the area code when dialing a number within the same area code, so I'm fairly sure there's no requirement to use the area code. Of course, that's only for the handful of numbers I actually hand-dial rather than just picking from my list of contacts.

Re:Why not both?

[Alcimedes]

As far as the phone stuff is concerned, essentially yes.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because 112 in the US results in 1 (12x) xxx - xxx

Phone numbers are parsed incrementally. Choke.

Re:Why not both?

[timeOday]

I wonder if we shouldn't just de-emphasize the number and phase in a "Help!" button on the devices (I guess then we'd need a universal "Help!" symbol - maybe a little stick figure with two arms up). Phone numbers in general seem kind of kludgy. Internet users generally aren't exposed to IP addresses any more.

Re:Why not both?

[pthisis]

All rotary phones in Sweden have the 0 before the 1, making the 0 quickest to dial. 0 gives one click.

Interesting.

In the US, city area codes were assigned based on the relative importance/population of the cities in order to make them fastest to dial for the most people. They can't start with 1- (that's for long distance calls) or end with -11 (x11 are reserved for special use--911 for emergencies and 411 for information being the most commonly known) and the middle digit is always "1" or "0". Within those rules, you got the biggest cities with the quickest codes to dial:

212--New York (fastest to dial goes to largest city)
213--Los Angeles
312--Chicago
214--Dallas
313--Detroit
etc

Some of the higher/slower numbers were unused, but there's a lot that were allocated (0 is the slowest to dial here):

907--Alaska (the whole state)
808--Hawaii
906--Central Michigan
etc.

It's not a hard and fast rule--some higher codes were split off as lower-coded regions became too big and so are in very populated areas, or came along more recently when the rule wasn't really applicable (touch-tone era). But it's kind of interesting.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember in a telecom class that the prof metioned that old switchboards started making the connection as soon as you started dialing. So to dial '112', you press 1 and it activates a part of the circuit, 1 the second part, 2 the third and this completes the circuit, and under this scheme there can't be any numbers that start with 112 since this is the end of the chain.

Notice there aren't any numbers that start with 112 in the EU, or 911 in the US. You won't hear of any person or company whose number is 911-5123 (for example) because the switchboard will cut it off after the third digit, unlike a 631-8446 (example) phone number that will allow you to type all 7 digits. Using US numbers as an example, in my country we use 9 digits.

Now, with digital switchboards and everything running in silicon chips or some software, you probably (most likely) don't send one digit at a time, you might be sending the full number you want to dial and let the switchboard process it as a whole thing. So this may be kept out of legacy support, or "tradition" or, perhaps, a technical reason that I don't know about.

Re:Why not both?

[geekoid]

Yes, becasue no where besides the UN do people have discussions about things.
'

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely, however +1 is not an issue, +1.. is most definitely not the same number as 112.

Re:Why not both?

[newcastlejon]

Look! It's that guy whose camper they were whacking off in!

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think all smartphones (definitely Android phones) display an "emergency call" button on the lock screen.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure how long it's been that way, but on all my recent phones, the phone itself has solved that automatically. No need to mess with any contacts, no need to enter the country code when I'm taking someone's phone number; it just works. By what I can determine, the phone simply always automatically adds your "home" country code to any number that was not entered with one.

So yeah, no reason for me to ever dial or save someone's number with country code included--unless the number is foreign, of course.

Re:Why not both?

[ai4px]

Which is easy enough to do if you are driving on the right hand side of the road!

Re:Why not both?

[pthisis]

Dialing 1 for long distance is actually something that goes farther than the country code. Until about twenty years ago calls within an area code did not require you to dial the area code, but you did have to dial a 1 for long distance.

Heck, up until 25 years ago I didn't have to dial the full exchange.

My town had 2 exchanges, numbers were either 729-xxxx or 725-xxxx.

If you were dialing in town, you only had to dial 5 digits (9-xxxx or 5-xxxx)
If you were dialing the next town over, then you needed the full exchange (e.g. 867-xxxx).
If you were dialing a local number in another area code, you needed the area code (212-867-xxxx).
And if you were dialing a long-distance number then you needed a 1 plus the area code (1-213-867-xxxx).

Re:Why not both?

[rabbit994]

Both AT&T and T-Mobile route 112 to 911 for European people who happen to be roaming onto their network. I'm not sure what Verizon and Sprint do but they are much less likely to have foreigners on their systems.

951 is already assigned Area code in United States.

Re:Why not both?

[ArsenneLupin]

Yes, but unfortunately the Brits are driving on the wrong hand side of the road...

Re:Why not both?

[dcsmith]

I usually don't use the area code when dialing a number within the same area code, so I'm fairly sure there's no requirement to use the area code. Of course, that's only for the handful of numbers I actually hand-dial rather than just picking from my list of contacts.

It depends on whether the area code you are in is an overlay area with another area code. If all local calls from the phone you are using are within one area code, you can probably get away with 7-digit dialing. If you're in Northern Virginia, for example, 703, 571 and 540 can all be local calls (actually, 301, 240 and 202 in MD and DC may be local calls as well) so 10-digit dialing is required.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

why are you so stupid? if they allow this, then someone will want THEIR special number included. and then someone else and then someone else. eventually all numbers will be emergency numbers. can't you see the chaos this would cause?

Re:Why not both?

[TubeSteak]

Actually I wonder: why is there a number for emergency calls from mobiles?

112 is baked into the GSM (Groupe Spécial
Mobile*) standard.
GSM was created by a coalition of European countries and the idea was that you could place an emergency call in any country without knowing the local emergency number.

*renamed the Global System for Mobile Communications.

Re:Why not both?

[vigmeister]

But that only works if you hold your phone in your left hand...

Makes sense...right handed folks with iPhones trying to call for help => 'death grip'

Re:Why not both?

[rwise2112]

I think all smartphones (definitely Android phones) display an "emergency call" button on the lock screen.

I've has a couple of android phones, and neither have had that.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine it would be technically trivial to simply require that *both* numbers link to emergency services. It would be easy to do, and would make things a lot safer for visitors in either America or Europe who may only be familiar with one or the other.

Easy peasy, and no argument needed.

Of course, this is the U.N. we're talking about here, so OF COURSE there will be an argument. And it will no doubt break down fairly quickly into an old-resentment pissing contest between Europe and America, with both sides engaging in increasingly hyperbolic rhetoric and the end result being both sides telling the other to sod off. It will probably be considered a success if four additional numbers don't get proposed by countries who hate the West in general.

While your argument has merit here, I'd rather not turn this bullshit into yet another standard vs. metric argument, since we see how well that shit turned out. Nothing like stocking two complete sets of wrenches in every shop for zero valid reason.

And if there's no chance of both parties coming to an agreement on one of the numbers, then fine. Tell them both to fuck off and make a whole new number.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

the best number would be 505, which is similar to S O S

Re:Why not both?

[mcgrew]

For two, most switches use the first digit being a "1" to denote the beginning of a long distance call.

No, 1 is the country code for the US. You used to didn't have to dial 1 for a long distance call back when you had to dial 0 to get a human operator to connect you to a foreign country. Dialing 1 is a recent phenomenon.

Re:Why not both?

[Sique]

They are. For instance, in Germany, 911 is the area code for Nuremberg.

Re:Why not both?

[Tomji]

Implement BOTH, while declaring one to be the WINNER.
So that in one or two generations we can disable the loser of the two. Carrying two just for that purpose just doesn't make much sense long term.

Re:Why not both?

[kelemvor4]

Grammar fix: I guess that's supposed to be "but to whom it happened".

http://www.deviantart.com/download/92371554/Grammar_Nazi_by_ColorationJim.jpg

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Years ago I had an Ericsson phone that did preset numbers. Dial 1, get voicemail, 2, parents, 3, brother and so on through friends, workmates, shops, eateries and a whole bunch of crap, through to 110, Perfect Pizza, 111, Papa Johns and 112, Dominos. Gone midnight, after leaving the pub quite thoroughly drunk, I needed a pizza. 110? No answer. 111? Closing. 112? My goodness gracious, what an unusual selection of toppings. Ah well, had to risk a kebab.

Re:Why not both?

[dodobh]

Indian mobile numbers are generally 10 digits, starting with 9. The country code is +91, lots of phone numbers and exchanges begin with 1.

Re:Why not both?

[MrNaz]

Good catch. Few know the difference between who and whom these days, I suspect within a decade that shade of syntax will be lost like so many before it, and take another small piece of the English language's expressional range with it.

Re:Why not both?

[Cyrano de Maniac]

GSM already standardizes on 112 (even in North America - obviously you can also dial your local emergency number too, so 911 works here)

Have you tried it? It certainly doesn't work universally if at all in North America.

Two years ago I attempted to call from my GSM cellular phone to report a drunk driver. Wondering if "112" actually worked like I knew it should for GSM, I tried that number first, however the call didn't go through. I then reverted to 911 and as expected that call went through just fine.

Re:Why not both?

[styrotech]

Some countries still use 111 (eg New Zealand). It was the fastest 3 digit number to dial on an NZ rotary phone. That's also why the UK had 999 - their rotary phones had the numbers in reverse order.

Of course NZ also recognises 911 - there were too many morons learning their important life skills from American TV shows.

Re:Why not both?

[camperdave]

AFAIK, phone switches already do that. I'm pretty sure I can dial 100 (emergency number for landlines over here) on my cell phone...

Where is "over here"?

Re:Why not both?

[Solandri]

Unfortunately, the US attitude always seems to be to disagree with any international standardisation process rather than reach a compromise

Phone networks originated in the U.S. If the international standard differs from and is incompatible with that of the U.S., you need to be asking why it differs. Not why the U.S. had the temerity to keep its existing system, instead of uprooting it and replacing it wholesale it to comply with a different standard.

That's not to say the standard is illegitimate - maybe the U.S. system was stupidly designed and not conducive to expansion across the globe, in which case it would be perfectly justified. But your assumption should be that the first system was the standard. And if a different standard was chosen elsewhere, you should be questioning that decision first. Not immediately criticizing the first system developed for not changing to adopt the new standard.

Re:Why not both?

[GuldKalle]

So, if you leave/enter the US, do you reprogram all your contacts?

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

The network re-routes 911 to local police, not the phone. The number is actually dialed, & humans must be trained to use those numbers. The phones do not have to change at all!

Re:Why not both?

[Quila]

"Hello, you have dialed Pakistani emergency. You say you are being raped? You slut. After you are done having your fun we will track you down and have you stoned for adultery."

"Hello, you have dialed American emergency. You witnessed a kid copying a CD of your music? We will have him executed immediately."

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

They can use it during SXSW. The city's pretty much unreachable then anyway.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

10-digit dialing has the 3-digit area code + 7-digit local part. High population centers in the USA, like New York city, have "area code overlays" & require this.
We have so many phones, faxes, mobiles, & pagers (doctors still use 'em) that numbers don't fit inside 10^7 options.

Re:Why not both?

[KiwiSurfer]

I think all smartphones (definitely Android phones) display an "emergency call" button on the lock screen.

I've has a couple of android phones, and neither have had that.

My Android phone has an emergency call button on the lock screen. However I think it only appeared when I switched to the CyanogenMod firmware so I guess HTC doesn't include the button in their firmware. YMMV.

Re:Why not both?

[cwebster]

My phone (Samsung Galaxy S2 SGH-i777 running Android 4.1.2) automatically adds the +1 when I'm abroad.

Re:Why not both?

[maxwell demon]

They are. For instance, in Germany, 911 is the area code for Nuremberg.

Actually, 0911 is the area code for Nuremberg. You omit the 0 only if you use the country prefix (+49), but both +49911 and 0911 are distinct from 911.

Re:Why not both?

[jedwidz]

New Zealand here used/uses 111, but that was at the long end of the dial, so took 9 clicks rather than 1. Not easy to dial accidentally, but unfortunately slow to dial deliberately.

If you tried to dial 999 (being the UK emergency number), rather than emergency services, you'd get a recorded message instructing you to dial 111. I always thought that was dumb, but your explanation makes sense.

Then again, IIRC, dialling 911 also gave the recorded message, to cries of 'Just put me through already, I'm dying here!'.

Re:Why not both?

[Hans Adler]

That's not relevant because for a call to Nürnberg you have to dial either 0911... from within Germany or +49911... for an international call. Neither starts with 911.

What is a problem, though (as someone already pointed out above and I verified independently), is that a huge number of phone numbers in Madrid is of the form 911xxxxxx and has to be dialed like that from everywhere in Spain. They would all have to be changed.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

My company routes 911 and 999 as well as 111 (the actual emergency number in NZ) because too many idiots watch American TV.

Re:Why not both?

[_merlin]

No seriously, the phone and SIM card have a list of emergency numbers stored in them. On most Nokia handsets, the emergency numbers in the phone are 112 and 911. The emergency numbers in most Australian SIM cards are 000 and 112. If you dial any number in either list, the phone doesn't send the digits at all - it does a special call initiation sequence for emergency calls. This is routed to the local emergency response service by the network. But it's true that for recognised emergency numbers, the actual digits never go further than the phone recognising it as an emergency number.

Re:Why not both?

[_merlin]

Well, it wouldn't be legal in EU or Aus if it doesn't allow an emergency call even when the phone is locked. My S3 has an emergency call button on the lock screen. Tapping it gives you a keypad where you have to dial a number. If it's a recognised emergency number, the phone initiates emergency call; if it's a user-designated emergency contact's number, the call is allowed; if it's neither, the you're returned to the lock screen. All the phones with hardware keypads recognise emergency numbers and allow them to be dialled when locked, too.

Re:Why not both?

[jedwidz]

People see 'whom' in print, so they start using it to make themselves look smart.

A few examples from my work email:

To those whom care...

We need to get information from whomever is looking after it.

Whomever has the trophy, can you please bring it to my desk.

Can whomever at you decide should pick this up give me a call.

Can I ask whomever coded it to have a look?

Re:Why not both?

[shutdown -p now]

It's 00 in most countries, because that's what ITU recommends as the standard prefix. NANPA is the major cluster of exceptions.

Re:Why not both?

[shutdown -p now]

Was the current American system already in place by the time phone networks were "exported" to Europe and elsewhere, though? Or is it just divergent evolution from a single common base?

Re:Why not both?

[jrumney]

I'm pretty sure the recorded message on 999 and 911 came well after everyone had switched to push button telephones (some time in the 1990s IIRC). The reason for a recorded message was that the general public might not expect 999 and 911 to go through to emergency services, so might be more likely to dial it while playing around, not really intending to place the call.

Re:Why not both?

[jrumney]

there are three standards for emergencies: 911, 112, and 000

...and 111, 999, 110, 119 ... the only one of these that is a standard is 112, which is codified in the ETSI standards for GSM and its successors. The rest are national assignments, made with no reference to any standard.

Re:Why not both?

[jrumney]

I think all smartphones (definitely Android phones) display an "emergency call" button on the lock screen.

Which brings up the "Emergency Dialer" screen - a phone keypad.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

are you nuts ? The prefix for long distance calls in the UK is 0, all standard phone numbers start with a 0 except local ones, why do you think that is?

If someone phones you from abroad there is no zero however since it is a non long distance component so your 01234 567890 call dialled from outside if the country would be 00 44 1234567890 anywhere except from the USA and Canada

Re:Why not both?

[TClevenger]

But your assumption should be that the first system was the standard. And if a different standard was chosen elsewhere, you should be questioning that decision first. Not immediately criticizing the first system developed for not changing to adopt the new standard.

Unfortunately, "standards bodies" tend to do that all too often. (See the metric system, aluminum and the gibibyte.)

Re:Why not both?

[TClevenger]

Look! It's that guy whose camper they were whacking off in!

Whenever I hear some grammar nazi correcting somebody about that, I always picture (and sometimes utter) the phrase "off in whose camper they were whacking."

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

why not just split the difference and make it 912?

Re:Why not both?

[digitaldigit]

It was only the number 11 which was changed, there are lots of numbers starting with say 15, 19 and so on.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

There might be local numbers starting with 911 in countries that use 112 and vice-versa.

Re:Why not both?

[pteron]

This is totally incorrect!

In the UK, dialling a 9 using pulse dialling was very slow.

New Zealand reversed the numbers on the dial but not the number of pulses so dialling a 1 actually sent the same pulse train as a 9 did in the UK.

Re:Why not both?

[FireFury03]

Phone networks originated in the U.S. If the international standard differs from and is incompatible with that of the U.S., you need to be asking why it differs. Not why the U.S. had the temerity to keep its existing system, instead of uprooting it and replacing it wholesale it to comply with a different standard.

Your argument would hold water if the US was still using the original system that was in place before international standardisation. That's not the case - the original US phone system didn't use SS7, for example. As it stands, the ITU produce standards by collaberation with all stakeholders (the US included), the various national standards bodies, such as ETSI, ANSI, etc. then take those standards and modify them. ETSI, etc. tend to use those standards more or less as-is, with fairly minimal changes. ANSI tend to take those standards and make vast numbers of unneccessary and pointless changes - Some of this is useful (i.e. the ANSI pointcode address space is bigger than the ITU standard), but most of it is stuff like swapping bit-fields around, etc which serve no useful purpose and just makes the US system incompatible with everyone else's.

But your assumption should be that the first system was the standard. And if a different standard was chosen elsewhere, you should be questioning that decision first. Not immediately criticizing the first system developed for not changing to adopt the new standard.

I'm not criticising the US for not changing an existing system to a new international standard, I'm criticising the US for intentionally making *new* systems incompatible with the rest of the world.

Re:Why not both?

[Sique]

No, actually, what you dial is not what the phone system sees. If you are calling 0911 from within Germany, your local phone switch sees a call "911... TON national" (TON = Type of Number, a field in the ISDN header). If you are dialing local a number starting with 911..., your local phone switch sees a call "911... TON subscriber". As far as I know, emergency numbers in Germany are not of type subscriber (as they are for instance in Austria), so a call to 911... TON national would indeed call Nuremberg and not the local emergency (it's more complicated as emergency service numbers in Germany are provided by Deutsche Telekom, and if you are calling from different networks, you would always have to prefix the call with 1033 to route into the Deutsche Telekom network).

Re:Why not both?

[Hans Adler]

I am not at all convinced by this argument. Assuming the technical details that you are describing are correct, the situation is no different from, say, an eight-digit phone number in Munich such as 40123456 and a six-digit (legacy) phone number such as 123456 in Hamburg, which has the prefix (0)40. Both would be represented by precisely the same number and distinguished only by the TON field, so a TON = national number that just starts with 911 can't be a problem either.

Or are you saying that it is the case, and technically necessary, that if I dial 0112 in Germany, resulting in 112 with TON = national, I get the same result as when I dial 112?

Re:Why not both?

[Adrian Harvey]

Bah! Old days indeed. New Zealand still uses 111.

And it can't be dialed easily because NZ pulse dialing is backwards (10 pulses for 0, 9 pulses for 1 8 for 2, etc)

Re:Why not both?

[Hognoxious]

1 is quicker to dial but also easiest to accidentally dial. 999 is slower but easy to dial by touch using tricks, e.g. make the scout sign, find the stop with the third finger and then the 1st finger naturally falls into the 9 hole. A toddler or other animal is unlikely to turn the dial a full circuit three times.

Re:Why not both?

[cthulhu11]

NTSC vs PAL

Re:Why not both?

[Sique]

Not exactly, the number in munich would be 40123456 TON subscriber, the number in Hamburg 40123456 TON national, which makes the routing clear. If you call 0112 in Germany, you get a refused call, as the nummer 112 is specially handled by your phone switch to get to Deutsche Telekom and then to the emergency local to your call.

Re:Why not both?

[Drishmung]

Back in the old days some countries used 111, which could very easily dialed accidentally by clicking the receiver contact a few times (rotary pulse dial phones).

Except that in at least some if not all of those countries, the phone dial went 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Looks sensible does it not? But, as dialled, 0 = ten clicks, then 1 was 9, etc. That meant that 111 was VERY unlikely to be dialled by accident---and I believe that was also the reason the the U.K. adopted "999", with the dial running 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.

This is an early example of someone making the decision that the 'user interface' (the order of the digits on the dial) should be as the user might expect (ascending order, starting at 0) rather than reflecting the underlying hardware peculiarities.

Of course, with keypad entry, different criteria apply. We want something short and easy to remember that can't easily be dialled by accident. The latter rule argues against three digits the same, hence 112.

Wikipedia also has an article which includes information on why 911 was chosen for the U.S.

Re:Why not both?

[plover]

The NANP is certainly big enough to qualify as a standard. It's even international.

That's the nice thing about standards. There are so many to choose from!

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think Canada and most of the Caribbean countries are part of the US then?

Exactly. It's not the USNPA, it's NANPA.
Citation: http://www.nanpa.org

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahah oops. I meant http://www.nanpa.com

That's wut I get for using a phone to post, and for some odd reason thinking they were a nonprofit organization. Oh well. Good thing I can hide my stupidity behind AC =)

Prior use

[Anonymous Coward]

While we really don't use 112- as a prefix in the US, I could see how someone might use 911- as a prefix elsewhere.

Re:Prior use

[Chrisq]

While we really don't use 112- as a prefix in the US, I could see how someone might use 911- as a prefix elsewhere.

This is exactly how the arguments will break down. Someone will say something like "you provide 911 in Europe because everyone knows that's the emergency number, but we don't need to provide 112 for the same reason" and nothing can be agreed. GP's idea that both provide both is much better, that way it is neutral and there can be no harm in America routing 112 to the emergency services.

Re:Prior use

[lengau]

Just in case anyone is wondering: the NANP has area codes and exchanges starting with 2-9, which means that 112 would be globally unique on NANP (in fact, 11 would allow the phone system to register that you must be dialing 112, since the only time you'd start with a 1 is when dialing the NANP country code followed by an area code, or when dialing the emergency services.

Re:Prior use

[click2005]

I'm just glad they're abandoning 999 used in the UK. Its far too easily miscalled on a locked phone.

Re:Prior use

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't it just stay the same as it is now? There's a reason for that, you know.

If they try to enforce 112, the US will tell them to get bent. +1 is the North American regional prefix, and the US uses it directly as a country prefix.

If they try to enforce 911, India has just as much right to do the same, since +9 is the mid-east regional prefix, and +91 is India's country prefix.

Why must the ITU screw everything up? They're like King Fecas. Everything they touch turns to crap.

Re:Prior use

[NevarMore]

The new number is so easy to remember! It's a dandy jingle, 0118 999 881 999 119 725 3

Re:Prior use

[Anonymous Coward]

To make an international call you need to use the plus sign or double zeros. There is no conflict.

Re:Prior use

[Anonymous Coward]

I was coming here to post this!

Re:Prior use

[CatBandit]

In fact... if you make 911 the emergency number in Spain we won't be able to dial to the 10% of fixed lines in Madrid in Spain.

91xxxxxxx is how all home lines in Madrid province begin with.

Re:Prior use

[Megane]

since the only time you'd start with a 1 is when dialing the NANP country code followed by an area code, or when dialing the emergency services, or when butt-dialing a number unintentionally.

Fixed that for you.

Yes, any number can be butt dialed, but using only one digit (999) or adjacent digits (112) is a lot easier to butt-dial than opposing digits (911). Then again, I've heard that there are phones out there which will dial an emergency number when you smash a bunch of buttons, under the dodgy assumption that it must mean you're really in trouble when you can't coherently dial a number.

Re:Prior use

[demonlapin]

Given that mobile phones have you enter a number and then press a separate button to connect the call, I would say it would not be a problem. Locals who would call from a fixed line (where the system has to be able to interpret on the fly) will already know the correct number; visitors who only have mobiles are the ones who need this.

Re:Prior use

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately the reason it's so easy is that they want it to be possible to call it from a locked phone...

I have a phone with keys somewhere ;) and both 999 and 112 are easy to dial when it's locked. In fact, it suppresses all the other keypresses, and stops after the 3rd digit - so if I sit on it and hit 14589345897236421738324548567894678956 all that shows is '112'.

Most touch-phones have a 'make emergency call' button when locked, which means you don't need to know the number. In fact, the GSM spec contains a special call type 'emergency' which is meant to be triggered when you press that, or dial 112 or 999 (or presumably 911) so the digits really don't matter to the network. The idea was that those calls could kick someone else off the network if it was congested, for an emergency. I don't believe it was ever implemented though.

Re:Prior use

[jittles]

I was hoping they would use 867-5309... I miss Jenny.

Re:Prior use

[WillerZ]

the GSM spec contains a special call type 'emergency' which is meant to be triggered when you press that, or dial 112 or 999 (or presumably 911) so the digits really don't matter to the network. The idea was that those calls could kick someone else off the network if it was congested, for an emergency. I don't believe it was ever implemented though.

It was implemented. In the UK at least if you call an emergency number when you have a weak signal it will dramatically improve for the duration of the call as the cell tower reconfigures itself to use up to its maximum power and, as you say, drops any other call that was interfering with the call placed by your handset.

The towers are smart enough not to drop any calls or boost the power unless it will help.

Re:Prior use

[NJRoadfan]

Make sure you remember it BEFORE your fire extinguisher catches on fire.

Re:Prior use

[Anonymous Coward]

That joke will never die.

Re:Prior use

[CatBandit]

I think this is probably an important rule that you cannot break in international numbering conventions (someone better informed could enlighten us). I say this because 10 or 15 years ago there was a huge numbering restructuration (due to increasing mobile numbers) to allocate a special numbering for mobiles (cellulars ?), and when it was done I remember several experts arguing to follow the international numbering rules to avoid this overlapping.

So if you have 911 for an emergency call, you won't be able to have any 911xxx number afterwards. It's not a big issue, just to confirm 911 at least has one clear numbering in conflict here in Europe.

I would be interesting to know if there is any on the other way (112).

Re:Prior use

[cayenne8]

I'm just wondering why is the world anyone would want to listen to the UN on this?

What's wrong with our current system, it seems to work just fine in the US so far and if it ain't broke, don't fix it as they say....?

Re:Prior use

[Anonymous Coward]

the prefix(vorwahl / areacode) to my city in Germany is 911

Re:Prior use

[Anonymous Coward]

Inflammable means flammable? What a country!

Re:Prior use

[TheRealMindChild]

Not really. Make both available where both can be available. If 911 is a prefix in your country, use 112. If you have 112, use 911. Wait, that's practically how it already is!

Re:Prior use

[Insightfill]

The new number is so easy to remember! It's a dandy jingle, 0118 999 881 999 119 725 3

Thanks for that. Now I'm stuck with the song in my head and will have to watch the vid.

Re:Prior use

[nosfucious]

+ sign is universal for International calls.
00 is not universal. A lot of countries use it, but by no means all.

Re:Prior use

[RevWaldo]

As an American, I was a bit disappointed there wasn't a "joke joke" here. Not a joke about something that was really going on in the UK, just an "Imagine if they were to change the emergency number to something ridiculously long and hard to remember? That'd be wacky!" kind of a joke.

.

Re:Prior use

[VMaN]

Harmonizing standards is about long term gains, and I fully support it, even if it means temporary inconvenience.

Re:Prior use

[Anonymous Coward]

Also other things can be done with GSM/3G emergency calls. Years ago there was a mall bombing in Finland and after that the mobile network in that area was changed into a mode where only emergency calls were connected and normal traffic was dropped. Also there is a possibility at SIM card to have higher call priority which is usually enabled in mobile phones of officials (police, fire etc.). In congestion cases lower priority calls are just terminated.

Re:Prior use

[Mike Buddha]

I get disappointed that the jokes on TV shows aren't even funnier too.

Re:Prior use

[cayenne8]

Harmonizing standards is about long term gains, and I fully support it, even if it means temporary inconvenience.

But what good is it doing to do me even in LONG run to have my 911 emergency number be the same as in some other country?

I mean...it isn't like we're going to change to metric, which would actually affect many more things between the countries that the emergency number.

But WFT is going to benefit me as a US citizen to 'harmonize' my emergency number to be the same as someone in say, France or Egypt?

Re:Prior use

[atisss]

In US you don't. It's common to dial US numbers prefixed with 1 without any international code.

Re:Prior use

[Teun]

The reason(s) for a global emergency number are quite obvious.
Just take the example of the party of daft Brit mountaniers that some years ago got stuck on a French mountain.
Because the UK had retained their obsolete 999 these dimwits did not know about the EU-wide implementation of 112 and they had to call friends at home to get the needed help.

Yes there is a need for a single number!

Re:Prior use

[bfandreas]

While we really don't use 112- as a prefix in the US, I could see how someone might use 911- as a prefix elsewhere.

Yes. We already use it. It's a Porsche. Nice one, too.

Re:Prior use

[Teun]

He he, try from outside the US :-)

Re:Prior use

[Darinbob]

That's because you need to use the jingle to remember it. Including the long pause before the final 3.

Re:Prior use

[Darinbob]

Hmm, I don't have a + on my phone.

Re:Prior use

[Darinbob]

It is in case you need to call an emergency number when travelling to other countries. Even Americans do that occasionally.

Re:Prior use

[remus.cursaru]

It was implemented. In the UK at least if you call an emergency number when you have a weak signal it will dramatically improve for the duration of the call as the cell tower reconfigures itself to use up to its maximum power and, as you say, drops any other call that was interfering with the call placed by your handset.

Link please! I think you're confusing this with the phone/sim* ability to use ANY available network (not only you provider's network) for an emergency call. This can be used as a starting point for further documentation. *in some countries you can dial the emergency number even if you don't have a sim card in your phone.

Re:Prior use

[maxwell demon]

You usually get the + by pressing down the 0 key for a longer time.

Re:Prior use

[maxwell demon]

However, in Germany you always have to dial a 0 to the area code (unless you prefixed it with the international prefix for Germany), but you wouldn't dial a 0 before an emergency 911. That is, with "0911" or "+49911" you get to Nuremberg, with just "911" you'd get to the emergency call.

Indeed, the only numbers you can reach from a cell phone without starting your number with 0 or + are network internal numbers (like your mailbox) or emergency numbers. I don't think the 911 would make problems here.

A reason to not use 911 on cell phones could be that people might then try to use it also on landline phones where it might be the prefix of an ordinary phone number in the same area.

Re:Prior use

[Miamicanes]

> the only time you'd start with a 1 is when dialing the NANP country code followed by an area code,
> or when dialing the emergency services.

Not quite. You forgot about 11-prefixed vertical service codes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_service_code ).

That said, AFAIK, nothing today actually USES 112, and no vertical service codes BEGIN with 112, so it could technically be used as an emergency number. Nevertheless, I see one of three things happening:

Scenario 1: ITU declares that 112 and 911 are emergency numbers everywhere, except in countries where it would screw up the phone system. The US yawns and says, "OK, we'll make 112 work here as an alias for 911".

Scenario 2: ITU declares that 112 must be the One and Only emergency number worldwide, and that countries must stop using 911 entirely. The US tells the ITU to go to hell. Canadians quietly do the same in less heated terms, but implement 112 as a fallback second emergency number anyway. The FCC plans to quietly do the same, then some halfwit elected official gets the stupid idea of making it the nationwide "patriot hotline" number to report suspicious un-American activity to DHS, and the whole thing goes down in flames.

Scenario 3: ITU declares that 112 is mandatory and 911 is optional. The US grudgingly agrees, asks carriers to implement it, and sets a compliance deadline of 2025.

Re:Prior use

[BeerAndLoathing]

Of course, following the selection of scenario 3, cell phone bills start showing a Federal Emergency Services Expansion fee starting this January

Re:Prior use

[vawarayer]

This is why it's called International code, not National code.

Re:Prior use

[shutdown -p now]

But why would you want to dial the number prefixed with 1 if you're already in the 1-zone?

Re:Prior use

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck? No you don't. The plus sign means "your country's exit code then these numbers". There is no "plus sign" on a north american phone, and double zeros won't get you anywhere. We dial 011 for our exit code. Just because your exit code is 00 doesn't mean everyone's is.

Re:Prior use

[Grant_Watson]

It's hard to tell from context whether you're not from the US or you're an American who has never used seven-digit dialing.

In the US, the first three digits of a ten-digit telephone number are the area code. Traditionally if you were calling someone who was in the same area code you were in you would not dial the area code but only the last seven digits of the telephone number. If you needed to call someone outside your area code, pressing 1 first allowed the telephone network to know that you were dialing a ten-digit number.

It used to be that when an area code ran out of telephone numbers, it would be split into multiple area codes. This meant that some numbers would change in the first three digits, which is inconvenient. The modern practice is to add a new area code that applies to the same geographical area as the old one, but that means that someone living next door to you may have a different area code than you do; the solution is to make everyone dial the full ten digits regardless of area code.

I think landline practice (7- or 10-digit dialing) still varies by region, but all modern cell phones use ten-digit dialing.

Re:Prior use

[mcvos]

Why is this Insightful? It's completely irrelevant! Not every call is automatically an international call, you know. Or is it currently impossible to call India from the US?

Re:Prior use

[cayenne8]

It is in case you need to call an emergency number when travelling to other countries. Even Americans do that occasionally.

The VAST majority do not.

Hell, I'd posit that the majority of people likely never leave their state....maybe not a majority, but likely a high number!

Re:Prior use

[shutdown -p now]

I'm not an American, but I live in US in an area which uses ten-digit dialing exclusively. Furthermore, I haven't used landlines for years, just cellphones.

I am familiar with the system that you describe, though - it's how it works in my own country, outside of a few cities - but I find that consistent 10-digit dialing is much easier to use.

Re:Prior use

[Vlado]

Why does it matter what the international prefixes are?

As long as you're not dialing the number with + in front of it or your local exit code (00 in most European countries), you'll be quite OK.

911 and 112 do not have to be stored in your phone with + in front of them, since the idea is that the call is routed locally as close to your location as possible.

Re:Prior use

[Vlado]

So you're OK with someone dying, because they will be unable to call for help, while abroad, rather than you being slightly inconvenienced while you MAY have to learn a new 3-digit number?

Just for the record, I don't care if either of those numbers is adopted or none of them. In my country we already had a change from 92 to 112 about 20 years ago. Guess what: no one had a problem. If we managed to learn a different number once, we can do it again.

Re:Prior use

[Vlado]

Really?

I'm willing to bet that you do. I've had + on my very first analog cellphone that I was using more than 15 years ago.
I had it on every phone, ever since and I've never seen a mobile phone that did not have it.

I'll concede that it may not be printed on your keypad, but it's probably hiding somewhere around 0 or 1, if you keep the key pressed for a second or so. In any case read the manual, you're sure to find it.

Re:Prior use

[dwillmore]

A tend to agree. I've lived in the USA my whole life. I used to work for a company that made GSM basestation equipment, so I got in the habbit of always entering numbers into my phone with the full +1-NPA-NXX-XXXX format even if they were local to me. This later came in handy while traveling abroad. I could just take my SIM and put it in a local phone and call friends at home with no extra effort. It also came in handy when I moved to a different area code. I've lived outside of the area code I got my phone in for five years. It was no hassle for me to dial the whole 10 digit number as I've been used to doing it for so long.

Re:Prior use

[RockDoctor]

I'm just glad they're abandoning 999 used in the UK. Its far too easily miscalled on a locked phone.

I haven't heard of the UK's "999" being phased out, nor have I had the experience of accidentally dialling it while trying to unlock a phone. However, I have heard of cases where an excavator (American : "backhoe" ; UK : J.C.B. ; archaeologist's "big yellow trowel") has gone through a large phone cable, and while the repairs were being carried out hundreds of calls went to the emergency switchboard because of "make", [pause], "make", [pause], "make", "break", "make" sequences as te wires were reconnected "hot".

Yes, pulse dialling does still work. Pulse telephones do still exist, and do still work.

I suspect that someone has come up with a fix for this, since I've not heard of a repeat of the event since the early 2000s. But it is a distinct problem with "112" as an emergency number. Similarly however, the pulse train for "999" or "911" is considerably longer than that for "112". In short ... there isn't a simple, obvious solution.

Re:Prior use

[cgimusic]

Hard to remember? For some reason that jingle has stuck with me for years.

Re:Prior use

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have a + sign on your "...new generations of mobile phones and other devices."? Euh... I'd love to see a picture of it.

Huh...

[koan]

If I'm lying there barely conscious it seems to me the easiest thing to do would be to dial the same number 3 times, for example 111, you don't even have to look to do that.

Re:Huh...

[leuk_he]

The easiest thing to do out of your pocket.

Re:Huh...

[Rogerborg]

And the UK - and therefore the Baby Jesus - uses 999 for that reason.

However, it's also easy to dial it accidentally, especially from your pocket, which is the argument against it.

Re:Huh...

[bennies]

Probably to many false positives. But yeah that would be nice.

Re:Huh...

[Anonymous Coward]

australia has 000 its easy shit

Re:Huh...

[LinuxInDallas]

The fact that it is that easy to dial is probably the best reason not to use it. It needs to be easy to rememeber but not easy to accidentally dial.

Re:Huh...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because most Australians are illiterate and it's easier for them to remember "Three of them roundy things".

Re:Huh...

[JustOK]

BEER

Re:Huh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Put tha dingo on tha barbie, I'm hungry from all that pickpocketing tourists work. For fun later we can name landforms after words our retarded monkey comes up with.

Re:Huh...

[CastrTroy]

Sure, it could be accidentally dialed, but have there been any studies done on how many "accidental" calls are done with 999 as opposed to 112 or 911? And I say accidental in quotes because I had a friend in university who dialed 911 and then hung up "immediately" thinking the call wouldn't have time to complete. Cops came by, he didn't get charged, but I wished he would have. Half the people who "accidentally" dialing the emergency number are probably dialing it on purpose and pretending it's an accident. Also, this will become less and less of a problem in the future, as screen based phones require you to press "slide to unlock" "Home, if you aren't there already", "Phone Icon", "Phone -because favorites always shows first", then you can dial the emergency number. Not Sure if you then have to press send, button, but I'm not trying that. Also, most clothes don't have any effect on capacitive touch screens, so dialing from your pocket would be just about impossible.

Re:Huh...

[ChunderDownunder]

Australia uses triple zero.

0118-999-881-999-119-7253

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the UK standard 0118-999-881-999-119-7253?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab8GtuPdrUQ

Whats wrong with making it /really/ easy

[MrDoh!]

It's trivial to use; 0118 999 881 999 119 725

3

why can't we standardise on that?

Re:Whats wrong with making it /really/ easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Too many folks would forget that 3.

Re:Whats wrong with making it /really/ easy

[Twinbee]

Vid for those in the dark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab8GtuPdrUQ

Re:Whats wrong with making it /really/ easy

[girlintraining]

why can't we standardise on that?

Possibly because the last person who attempted to dial that particular emergency service wound up speaking to someone in another country before giving up, sending a e-mail, and then waiting while his coworkers slowly went insane from a head wound, foot injury, etc., and dropped unconscious. When he'd finally had enough of the waiting game, they busted into the room and bludgeoned him with the door. It's not exactly what I'd call a ringing endorsement. *cough*

Re:Whats wrong with making it /really/ easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Too easy to dial accidentaly while carrying the phone in your pocket.

Re:Whats wrong with making it /really/ easy

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a phone with a sticky 1 key once. Unfortunately, my cell number starts with "91". From the time the line sees "911", there's pretty much nothing you can do to back out of it: they will send police.

The worst occasion was when I was meeting my wife at home for lunch. She had her hand on the phone when I walked through the door. I had just stripped down to my undershirt to avoid getting sauce on my work shirt -- Haha! Outsmarted you this time, Gravity! -- when there was a knock on the door. Rule of thumb: no matter how many times police have mistakenly come to your house, you should resist the urge to say, "oh not this again." Since then I've stopped wondering aloud about the morons on "Cops" who always seem to surprised and in their undershirts when police show up.

So with that in mind: no, one digit dialing for monitored emergency services is NOT a good idea.

Re:Whats wrong with making it /really/ easy

[TechyImmigrant]

There has never been any argument about what the canonical form should be (0118 999 881 999 119 7253). The argument is about the short form (999, 911,112 etc.)

Re:Whats wrong with making it /really/ easy

[Darinbob]

But how easy are those to use when your phone is on fire?

Re:Whats wrong with making it /really/ easy

[TechyImmigrant]

It depends on whether or not you have a rotary dial phone.
We do.

the real one is 912

[Anonymous Coward]

the real one is 912

Re:the real one is 912

[Anonymous Coward]

Shuuut uuuup!

And why?

[Anonymous Coward]

And why does the EU use 112? Because we use 911. Seemed like the perfect reason to them.

Re:And why?

[azalin]

And why does the EU use 112? Because we use 911. Seemed like the perfect reason to them.

112 is used because 111 could be dialed by accident (hanging up a few times) on old pulse dial phones.

Re:And why?

[Anonymous Coward]

They both already work, on AT&T anyway. Dial 911 or 112 and you get the same thing. I dialed it by mistake once when trying to reach 1-201 number.

Re:And why?

[havana9]

IT's because 112 was the number of the Carabinieri. And Carabinieri's quick response team cars kicks ass. http://www.flickr.com/photos/52287882@N05/6891872513/

Re:And why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except in most of europe, you need two pulses to dial a one. One pulse to dial a zero.
So to dial 111 you need to klick klick pause klick klick pause klick klick.
In america you would be right.

Why am I greeted with commenting fields...

[Anonymous Coward]

...instead of just seeing everyone else's comments like normally?

Reasons for either

[phorm]

I believe in Asia (or at least Korea), it's 119, so even those two aren't consistent internationally.

One argument for 112 is that it's easier to quickly dial if you're having an emergency moment and your finger-mobility is limited.
An argument against would be that it's easier to dial by accident.
I believe that 911/119 were chosen partially because those were the farthest spaced digits, to prevent accidental dialling.

I once had a co-worker who had a very simple phone number. Something like 555-545-4544 (or had only 2-3 unique digits).
He amused us once by playing back a message that some random young child had left on his voicemail over the weekend, presumably after mashing keys on the phone. The interesting part was that it wasn't the first such voicemail he had, but it was generally from different random children.

So 112 may be easier to dial in an emergency, but it's also likely to have a higher number of mis-dials or 3-year-olds that just picked up a phone and mashed part of the number-pad.

Re:Reasons for either

[Chrisq]

I believe in Asia (or at least Korea), it's 119, so even those two aren't consistent internationally.

One argument for 112 is that it's easier to quickly dial if you're having an emergency moment and your finger-mobility is limited. An argument against would be that it's easier to dial by accident. I believe that 911/119 were chosen partially because those were the farthest spaced digits, to prevent accidental dialling.

I once had a co-worker who had a very simple phone number. Something like 555-545-4544 (or had only 2-3 unique digits). He amused us once by playing back a message that some random young child had left on his voicemail over the weekend, presumably after mashing keys on the phone. The interesting part was that it wasn't the first such voicemail he had, but it was generally from different random children.

So 112 may be easier to dial in an emergency, but it's also likely to have a higher number of mis-dials or 3-year-olds that just picked up a phone and mashed part of the number-pad.

The 911 goes back to the dial telephone days, when numbers could be dialled by line clicks. Nine is very unlikely to be mis-dialled, but took longer (9 or 10 pulses to send), and 1 was quick, so 911 was a good compromise. In the UK 999 would almost never be dialled by line noise but took longer.

Re:Reasons for either

[peppepz]

I believe that 911/119 were chosen partially because those were the farthest spaced digits, to prevent accidental dialling.

Weren't telephones using a rotary dial in the times when such decisions were made?

Re:Reasons for either

[wonkey_monkey]

999 was chosen partly because it was easy to dial in the dark, or by the disabled - you could just grab the whole disc and turn it as far as it would go, three times.

Re:Reasons for either

[foobsr]

Weren't telephones using a rotary dial ...

You could dial with the cradle, which is why 111 was considered.

CC.

Re:Reasons for either

[radja]

at least in the netherlands, you still can. pulse dialing is still supported.

Re:Reasons for either

[azalin]

Yeah, but you shouldn't mess up peoples pet theories by providing contrary facts.

Re:Reasons for either

[Shimbo]

That would be 000, though.

Re:Reasons for either

[SleazyRidr]

Maybe that's the reason we use 000 in Australia.

Re:Reasons for either

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in america. The rest of the world places 0 before 1 on the disc, making 9 the last (and slowest) digit.

Re:Reasons for either

[Anonymous Coward]

No, in Germany the 0 was last as well. Basically the number was the number of clicks, 1 for 1 click, 2 for 2 and the exception of 0 requiring 10.
The advantage of 112 was that it was the only number you could dial with a "locked" phone.
Locking the phone worked by putting a metal bolt into the number 2 finger hole.
Since 0 was the international and non-local prefix, you could also lock non-local calls by placing it into the number 9 hole.
Even if someone incorrectly put the lock into e.g. the 1 hole or the dial was broken, 112 was easy to dial manually (without the higher risk of misdials that 111 would have had from e.g. children that dial 1s over and over for fun).

Re:Reasons for either

[Dayze!Confused]

I can at least confirm that for Taiwan, but not if you wanted police, that would be 110. 119 was only for fire and ambulance. 112 would get you a phone repair line and 117 would give you the time. I also remember dialing 166 and listening to the weather in Chinese for fun.

Reference:
http://eng.taiwan.net.tw/pda/m1.aspx?sNo=0002068

Re:Reasons for either

[ais523]

Yeah, in the UK, everyone uses touchtone nowadays, but last we checked the exchanges still understand pulse dial, and will try to interpret the phone as doing that if it doesn't get the tones it's expecting. So cradle dialing may still exist!

Re:Reasons for either

[Anonymous Coward]

no silly. in australia we would turn the whole disc counter-clockwise

Re:Reasons for either

[Anonymous Coward]

I still think 000 is the worst possible number. I have lost count of the amount of times I have dialled emergency services trying to call an international number from within a PABX. Normally it works fine as you dial 0, for an external line and 0011 for the international call. However if the PABX line is set to automatically dial an external number you end up dialling 000 on the external line which automatically calls emergency services.

Re:Reasons for either

[maxwell demon]

Only in america. The rest of the world places 0 before 1 on the disc, making 9 the last (and slowest) digit.

Then Germany must be part of America. ;-)

Re:Reasons for either

[maxwell demon]

However modern phones tend not to have a cradle to pulse-dial with.

Re:Reasons for either

[Anonymous Coward]

It is.

Re:Reasons for either

[shutdown -p now]

That depends on which position you have 0 at. This actually varies between rotary phones in different countries. Maybe Brits have 0 before 1?

Re:Reasons for either

[Anonymous Coward]

The Australian number mimics the process of what happens before the call. Oh. Oh! OH!

So the ITU is going to make one of them not work?

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to prove they can come to an agreement on something, they're going to make a choice of one number or the other? Wouldn't it make more sense to have both of the numbers work? Is this just the ITU doing something in order to prove it can do something?

Why not have both?

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

Why not have both?

Re:Why not have both?

[andrewbaldwin]

Why not indeed?

The emergency number in the UK is 999 but all systems are configured to route 112 and 999 to the same place.

Well, the answer is obvious then.

[sootman]

> 911 is currently used in North America, while 112
> is standard across the EU and in many other
> countries worldwide.

911 then, of course. USA! USA! USA!

Re:Well, the answer is obvious then.

[JustOK]

USA = 872. Let's use that.

Clearly it should be 911

[Pope]

That way no one would ever forget it.

Re:Clearly it should be 911

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? 911 isn't a more memorable number than any other, really. I mean, maybe there's something about the fact that 9 is at one end of the 1-9 spectrum and the repetition of 1 might be memorable. I don't, however, see how it could be any more memorable than 919 or something palindromic so that little kids who write the letter E backwards wouldn't screw it up. I guess it fits in the 311/411 paradigm that's been going on, but isn't that mostly a US thing anyway, where *11 is some type of specialty number? I'm not really convinced that 911 is that much more memorable than 112.

Re:Clearly it should be 911

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

The Chileans would certainly remember, if they didn't write their dates the "wrong way around".

112

[Bogtha]

911 is currently used in North America, while 112 is standard across the EU and in many other countries worldwide.

112 isn't just standard across the EU and many other countries, it's part of the GSM standard. Outside of America getting its own way, there's no good reason to pick anything other than that, it's practically a worldwide standard already.

Re:112

[acidfast7]

lol at America. next thing you know, they'll say they invented the "telephone."

Re:112

[Anonymous Coward]

GSM sucks. It's been hacked. CDMA is more secure and allows for more calls on a tower than GSM.

Re:112

[jeffy210]

So is metric, look how well America uses that :-\

Re:112

[Anonymous Coward]

Mars Climate Orbiter ?

Re:112

[Megane]

I'll have you know we sell bottles of soda by the liter! Well, only the bigger ones, but that's metric!

Re:112

[Anonymous Coward]

And why couldn't you do the same thing with CDMA? More complex modulation? Only likely to slow people down, not prevent it from happening eventually!

Re:112

[azalin]

Well officially since 1893 and the Mendenhall order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units

Re:112

[bill_mcgonigle]

So is metric, look how well America uses that :-\

Americans use metric where it's useful, imperial where it's useful. It's entirely possible, some will be surprised to be well-versed in SI and still choose to use base-12 when building a staircase (without using a calculator).

It's impressive how Europeans who look down upon people who aren't at least bilingual also praise those who rigidly adhere to a single measurement system.

But, hey, I regularly use four spoken languages, two measurement systems, a couple dozen machine languages and and five base number systems, so maybe I'm just a hater.

Re:112

[SleazyRidr]

I still don't understand why a bottle of milk is a half gallon, while a bottle of soda is 2L. Or why the engine in my car is 3.0L but the gas tank is 14 gallons.

Re:112

[Anonymous Coward]

112 means that anyone calling international that doesn't remember to put in the 0 first has a high chance of accidentally dialing emergency services. Considering that in North America it is NOT standard to dial 0 first for long distance, it is not all that far of a stretch to imagine someone dialing, for example, Egypt and typing "112" to start the call instead of "0112".

It would be a terrible idea to standardize on the EU method, IMHO. 112 is just too likely to be dialed by accident. There's already enough exchanges and area codes starting with 91[245] as it is and emergency operators don't need more misdialed calls.

Re:112

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2-litre cola bottle is pretty much the only residue of a very very failed attempt at brining the metric system to america. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States

Re:112

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy, ranchers and everyday drivers want to use measurements that are convenient for living, and the engineers that made the bottle of sugar water and the engine want to use measurements that are easier to do math on.

Re:112

[Dr_Barnowl]

The UK is much the same ; EU law forces everything to be labelled in metric but people generally still think* in pounds and ounces and pints and feet and inches, partly because of history, partly because they are more "human" units.

No-one ever said "I'm going down the pub for a 0.57 of a litre". Except in beer commercials taking the piss out of metric.

* We think in imperial. We calculate in metric. Converting chains (22 yards, the length of a cricket pitch) to metres is a bitch.

Re:112

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange, I've never encountered a situation where it's been "useful" to use imperial units, save for when I explicitly deal with American things. I'd be genuinely interested to know exactly why you prefer building your staircases in feet and inches--I honestly can't think of a reason for that.

Also, your comparison with language is quite apples to oranges, and your boast of using many languages, measurement systems, and so on is irrelevant. I mean, I too regularly use several languages, measurement systems, programming languages, and base number systems, but I definitely have preferences among those (for shits and giggles: Swedish, metric, Haskell, and decimal) and I'm betting you do too.

Re:112

[Kjella]

(...) partly because they are more "human" units. No-one ever said "I'm going down the pub for a 0.57 of a litre".

For the same reason we say 4 GiB of RAM, not 4.294967296 GB except beer sizes are arbitrary. Here in Norway the usual size is the "halvliter" - literally half a liter. The other usual size for beer bottles is 0.33L - for all practical purposes a third.of a liter. British pints are for me just oversize beer, like on tap some offer 0.4/0.6L as small/large beer instead. There's absolutely nothing more natural about the pint than old habit. Besides, we all have our oddities even though we're pretty much all metric TVs are measured in inches. I have a 60 inch TV but except when I was sizing my TV desk - which is metric - I don't ever think about or talk about it in metric. I guess it's also a round number effect, multiply with 2.54 and I get 152.4 cm. I guess if it'd been 150 cm flat I'd probably say that instead. P.S. Is buying a pint of milk more natural than a liter of milk?

Re:112

[xaxa]

The UK is much the same ; EU law forces

The UK began metrication way before joining the EU. Don't read the Daily Mail so much.

Re:112

[Darinbob]

Old habit is also known as tradition. Many countries have people order hard alcohol in "shots" rather than giving a precise measurement. It's just the way of things. It's not always 20ml either, they vary. Bartenders will use "jiggers" even though it's not even a standard term (it's more useful to get the proportions correct rather than be precise about the amount of the final product).'

For a lot of things people don't even think about the actual sizes. It's a can of soda, not 12oz, etc. People like nice round measurements. Thus gallon of milk is a common size and so that term is used. Pint of beer is also a common size and probably for similar reasons. Even using "half" as an adjective is rare (thus "carton" of milk used instead of "half gallon"). "Halvliter" just seems very strange to me. Why not just ask for a glass?

Usually people don't bother with more precise measurements unless needed, such as in cooking recipes. (though my father's mother used her own very precise terms of "dash", "dab", and "pinch", which my mother was never able to reproduce very well)

Re:112

[Anonymous Coward]

Speak for yourself. I'm under 30, born/live in the UK and I pretty much use metric for everything other than distance and beer. Definitely can't remember the last time I used a stone, or a pound or an ounce.

Re:112

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans use metric where it's useful, imperial where it's useful. It's entirely possible, some will be surprised to be well-versed in SI and still choose to use base-12 when building a staircase (without using a calculator).

Why not use base 163? Or 17? 37? I know a person who voluntarily chooses to program in QBasic and writes assembly from memory in binary in QBasic strings and then runs those strings on the CPU when speed is needed (yes, really). That's fine for him having a bit of fun, but it does not by any stretch of the imagination imply that such an activity is a useful way to achieve anything.

Re:112

[Hans Adler]

Germany has been completely metricated for so long that several pre-metrication generations are no longer alive. Yet some Germans are still using customary units. And that's fine because they are simple multiples of metric units and are the same everywhere in Europe. For example a pound - to the extent that it's still in use - is nowadays exactly 1/2 kg except on those islands in the North West.

What most people are really attached to is words, not the precise size of a unit. What they don't understand is that with metrication they don't have to give up these words. They can call 1/2 kg a pound, they can call 1/2 litre a pint, they can call 1 metre a yard (this is already in use for distances on British motorways), they can call 1.5 km a mile. Years ago my mother sometimes asked me to bring half a pound (= 1/4 kg = 250 g) of butter from the supermarket. You can go down to the pub for a metric pint of 0.5 litres. Sure it's a bit less than an imperial pint, but you will get over it. Maybe see it this way: It will be a bit easier to have two. Or even three. This will be similar to what happened in Bavaria. A "Maß" of beer (e.g. at Oktoberfest) was once 1.069 litres. Nowadays it is precisely 1 litre.

Incidentally, every German child still knows some of the units as they still occur in fairy tales and other old texts, e.g. "7-mile-boots". They just don't know how much these old units are precisely, and as these formerly were different in different parts of the country, there isn't a simple answer anyway.

Re:112

[shutdown -p now]

It's completely irrelevant to the argument he's making. Whether GSM sucks or not, it's an extremely popular worldwide standard with numerous phone networks, all of which handle 112 as the emergency number today (including AT&T and T-Mo in the USA). So, going by the sheer number of people that already know that number, it's an obvious choice, even if you phase out GSM itself.

Re:112

[EnglishDude]

I'm a Brit born in the 80s and I don't understand pounds, ounces, feet and inches at all - and barely understand pints but that's only because that's what they serve in the pub. Whenever my parents talk to me using imperial units, I always have to convert them to metric. The only imperial unit I use daily is miles for driving, but even then I often use km - my GPS is set up for km and I think of fuel efficiency in litres per 100km. Also, I'm a skydiver and am forced to use imperial units because it's linked to the aviation regulations. That's pretty much it.

My experience is that anyone born before the 70s think in mainly imperial units, and anyone born afterwards think in mainly metric units, it's related to the metrication in education in the 70s.

It's painfully annoying when people mix units though, my dad was dictating size of wood to me once - "3 inches by 5 inches by 2 metres" "Dad!" "But that's the units the shop sells by!" and he's right. We need to get off our collective butts and either use 100% imperial or 100% metric not this annoying mix of two.

Re:112

[fuzzywig]

To be fair, most brits at least use both systems. Well, we tend to use metric for weights and volumes more than in the US (it's hard to argue that pounds and ounces are easier to use than [kilo]grams), but we still use imperial interchangeably for length/distance measurements.

There's some road junctions in the UK where you'll pass a sign informing you that it's 1/2 mile to the junction, and the next sign will tell you that it's 400m. Somehow no one seems to mind or have problems with this.

Why not both?

[MMC Monster]

There's a lot of inertia behind both of these numbers in their respective realms. Since all it takes is one non-informed person to call the wrong number and subsequently die, political pressure against standardizing on one number is going to exist.

That being said, why not make both numbers point to the same service planet-wide?

Never forget

[Hentes]

the twelfth of January!

Re:Never forget

[lengau]

Since 112 takes place in Europe, we should be remembering the 11th of February. As a South African, I do so with pride (11-2-1990: The day Nelson Mandela was released from prison).

Re:Never forget

[psmears]

Since 112 takes place in Europe, we should be remembering the 11th of February.

Indeed. Or the first of December :-)

Re:Never forget

[Gerinych]

Or November 2nd, which, incidentally, is my birthday.

Re:Never forget

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, since it's Europe it would be the 12th of January or the 2nd of November.

Re:Never forget

[dodobh]

DD-MM-YYYY, not MM-DD-YYYY.
So 1-12, or 11-2.

Re:Never forget

[Anonymous Coward]

Since 112 takes place in Europe, we should be remembering the 11th of February.

Indeed. Or the first of December :-)

Indeed. Or the 2nd of November :-)

Re:Never forget

[psmears]

Indeed. Or the 2nd of November :-)

Not in Europe, that's the point - over here the convention is to put the day before the month when writing the day in figures.

Let the phone remember it

[Anonymous Coward]

Android already provides an "Emergency call" button.
Then the UN could get on with sorting out world peace instead...

Perhaps not practical with older clockwork phones though.

the UK uses 999

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think so. The UK traditionally uses 999. When GSM took off it became possible to use 112 as an alternative (both currently work in the UK). I don't recall anyone ever complaining about 999 having too many false positives.

Re:the UK uses 999

[bigtomrodney]

999 was originally chosen as a number that required some intent to dial, as it was the longest dial on a rotary phone.

Re:the UK uses 999

[sFurbo]

000 is longer. It was used here, before being supplanted by 112. I suppose a child dialing 000 is more probable than 999, as it the dial is turned as far as it goes.

Re:the UK uses 999

[Alain Williams]

Wrong. It was used because it was easy to locate the '9' in the dark. The old dial had a metal rest that you could use to locate 0 and (next to it) 9. See: rotary dial I know this since I read it 45 years ago in an old telephone box.

Re:the UK uses 999

[Anonymous Coward]

000 is still the emergency number in Australia.

Re:the UK uses 999

[Adrian Harvey]

999 was originally chosen as a number that required some intent to dial, as it was the longest dial on a rotary phone.

Actually second longest. 000 would have been longer. But 0 already was used for the operator.

its a 5 second decision

[mestar]

Do both. Waste 1% of phone number space, which has basically no cost. Problem solved.

Re:its a 5 second decision

[dinfinity]

I think you're slightly underestimating the amount of natural numbers.

Re:its a 5 second decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's only wasting 0.1% of the phone number space, if you ignore the existing restrictions in dialing plans.
Reserving "1" would waste 10% of any number space, regardless of the length.
Likewise Reserving "11" would waste 1/100th = 1%, and "112" would waste 0.1%.
Not to mention this wastage only applies on phones where you don't press "Send". Mobile phones don't have this problem.
I'm all for including all widely deployed emergency numbers in the spec, in an emergency you'll want the phone to do the right thing.

oblig. Simpsons

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, no you got the wrong number, this is 91...2.

This is just a trial run

[Anonymous Coward]

The ITU's target is to break the Internet, but they recognize that it's an ambitious goal, so they're first looking to break the phone system to gain some experience.

Re:So the ITU is going to make one of them not wor

[Tridus]

It's the nature of large bureaucracies to make decisions in order to be seen as doing something. It doesn't matter if the something actually makes sense or not.

In the ITU's case, they've suffered some significant losses recently with "4G" being co-opted to mean "3G" by phone carriers and by their internet regulatory plan being shot down by the US. So they really need to do something here if only to feel like they're not totally impotent (like most of the UN is).

Does Not Matter!

[Anonymous Coward]

The ITU can do whatever they like, it REALLY does not matter at all.

Each country or local jurisdiction will do what they choose, exactly as they do now. The ITU seems to have gotten the idea that they are some form of governing body with the power to make edicts, rather than a loose knit consortium of telecom interests whose purpose is to try to find consensus for standards. They are there to work out protocol standards NOT run the internet or decide what phone numbers are to be used.

The ITU is setting itself up to be relegated to be completely ignored and utterly unimportant, or even disbanded.

GSM

[nodan]

Why isn't that built into GSM rather than depending on a phone number? Just pressing an emergency button should dial the proper number anyway, no?

Re:GSM

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because the route to the emergency services door also uses the non mobile phone net.

Re:GSM

[azalin]

And what would this button do 99.5% of it's time instead of wasting space and being a butt dial waiting to happen?

Re:GSM

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically speaking, it already is. What happens when you dial 112 (or 911, for that matter) is that the phone recognizes it as emergency number, then it doesn't actually dial it but starts an emergency service call. The network then decides based on your location where you are routed to.

The only issue is, currently only 112 is mandated by the GSM standard to be hard coded into the handset, simply because it started as a european standard. Most phones also recognize 911 and 999 as well as emergency numbers. It's just a question of what is specified in the standard, technically there is no issue at all.

Re:GSM

[shutdown -p now]

It is actually built into GSM, it's just that the emergency button is the sequence 1-1-2. It works that way in any country already (so, yes, you can dial 112 on your AT&T iPhone).

"Deeply divided" over what now?

[game kid]

Wednesday's announcement marks a rare show of consensus at the International Telecommunications Union meeting in Dubai, where delegates remain deeply divided over whether to endorse greater government sway over the Internet.

Say what now? I'm pretty sure we have consensus here that that's Complete And Utter Bullshit. The only point of dispute there is which government(s) get the greater sway (because they all want authoritarian power over content and delivery for their own reasons); and the only dispute here is whether the US or one of the other govs would be less horrible (and the comments I've read thus far mostly sway toward the US).

But yeah, of course governments want more power over the internet. Those that don't just need to be...convinced.

911/119

[sweffymo]

As others have said, that number was chosen because it is the hardest to dial accidentally or mis-dial. When numbers are right next to each other, it's a lot easier to mess up while dialing or to have a case of the hot dog fingers and accidentally dial the emergency number.

Re:911/119

[Anonymous Coward]

And despite that, america has a staggering amount of less than intelligent people calling constantly it for petty things like wanting the police to come and tell their neighbor to mow the lawn.
Compared to that, the number of calls that come from dialing it by accident is small.
Start by educating the people on when it is appropriate to call the emergency services instead of making the number difficult to dial.

Lets compromise

[Chrisq]

and go for 9112

Re:Lets compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

naah too easy to write, i say 112911

112

[Anonymous Coward]

How about America gets 911 when they use the Metric System.

Or we boot the 47% that thinks that Fox or Fox Lite is reality.

112, every time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardly anyone has a pulse telephone these days of course, but there are those that do, and 112 is inherently quicker to dial than 911.

Re:112, every time.

[MichaelSmith]

Yeah but easier to accidently dial when joining cables.

Whenever I need the assistance of Scotland Yard...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I simply ask the operator for 'Whitehall 1234'.

Alternatively, if the matter is urgent, one can always telegraph 212b, Baker Street...

easy

[Anonymous Coward]

# of people using 112
# of people using 911
biggest # wins

next topic on the agenda...

911 prefix conflict

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't 1xx numbers pretty much standard as service numbers in most countries?

Also, at least in Brazil, 911 conflicts with existing phone numbers 911x-xxxx.

It's actually a straightforward matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

We will HAVE to use both. Plus any other widely used set of numbers.

Think about it. Let us say we standardise on 333. Are we then going to allow 911, 112, or 999 to be used for other purposes? Of course not - the potential for confusion is just too great. So ALL numbers which are widely understood to be 'emergency' numbers will HAVE to be designated as such, and routed to the same place.

This is, of course, already happening. So this whole discussion is a waste of time...

If it's International . . .

[hduff]

Why not 666?

The Mark of the Beast is easy to remember.

Yes, I _am_ an agent of Satan, but the duties are mostly ceremonial.

Re:If it's International . . .

[fuzzywig]

Surely that would dial the Australian police?

(that joke make more sense if you live in the uk)

And why?

[rickb928]

IT has been managing these issues for decades. This is not new, and neither is the concept of a phone being used by someone in another country and the potential confusion in emergency calls.

Landlines aren't portable, like cellphones, but their users are. Someone from Germany, for instance, in New York on business, may well have to make an emergency call - how did they ever figure it out in the old days?

And my phone (my last 2 actually) doesn't have a useful speed dial to 911. I have to unlock it, find the dialer, and only then do I get to dial 911. I can't conceive of a reason to complain about one-button access yet, though of course I obviously haven't been in an emergency situation. How does an iPhone dial 911 quickly? I dunno, I use an Android phone. Quick doesn't seem to apply.

This really seems like ITU trying to impose something for the sake of it. Apparently they think they is important.

Mistakes..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in Canada, we use 911 here.

At work we get a lot of accidental outbound 911 calls. We think it's because you have to dial 9 to get out of the building, then 1-905 to call the local area code, so it's easy for people to misdial with all those 9's and 1's, particularily if they don't realize they are on a direct line where you don't have to dial 9 first. Or maybe it's just disgruntled employees, who knows.

GSM allows 5 emergency call codes

[kybred]

Per the 3GPP specs for GSM, the SIM has an item for Emergency Call Codes (EFecc) that can contain up to 5 call codes, each up to 3 digits. If any of these codes is dialed the phone will put the call through as an emergency call. This is to allow for localization of the emergency numbers. Since in a mobile, you enter the entire number to be called then hit SEND (or the equivalent), the switch doesn't have to decide how to route your call as you are dialing it, like is done for landlines.

I think the mobile phones are the easy part, the hard part will be the 'other devices' which presumably will include landlines.

Re:GSM allows 5 emergency call codes

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I want to text 911 instead? (And once its 2015, supposedly that will be a reality.)

NOT 911

[Anonymous Coward]

In the (admittedly few) offices I've worked in, you always had to dial 9 to get an outside line. Then, most numbers were non-local, which (for those who use land-lines still), you need to dial 1. So, you need to accidentally push a button twice in a row to dial emergency services, for a sequence done hundreds of times per year (for some in my office). Yeah, that's never an issue.

4G LTE == 4G Lite

[tepples]

In the ITU's case, they've suffered some significant losses recently with "4G" being co-opted to mean "3G" by phone carriers

I thought carriers were subconsciously encouraging their customers to be honest by referring to their deployment of Long Term Evolution as "4G Lite".

Let's make a compromise: 912

[Anonymous Coward]

n.t.

911, cause too stupid to learn

[Anonymous Coward]

I vote for 911 coz we all know americans won't ever learn a new 3-digit number.

FWIW: Smart option would be to use both.

Isn't it obvious

[Chrisq]

A universal number that everyone must use .... its got to be 666

The problem with finding an international standard

[hackertourist]

Generally you want the emergency number to be difficult to dial by accident. In the past, some national telecoms agencies made sure that no other numbers had the same first digit as the emergency number. This is being eroded now; in .nl, some idiot provider decided to make voicemail reachable via 1233 when emergency is 112.

why not 505 = SOS

[Anonymous Coward]

why not 505 = SOS

Both were in use

[Comboman]

DTMF (Touch Tone) dialing was introduced in 1963 but did not become commonplace until the 1970s. 9-1-1 was picked as the emergency number in 1968. It's worth noting that "1" and "9" are far from each other on both DTFM keypads and rotary dials, so the same logic (avoiding accidental calls) applies to both systems.

555

[blindbat]

We should make it 555 and make all the TV shows and movies into a joke when the give out numbers.

If it must be one(must it?)

[geekoid]

it seems to me the 911 would be harder to accidentally dial.

Is you co-worker Woz?

[Anonymous Coward]

I once had a co-worker who had a very simple phone number. Something like 555-545-4544 (or had only 2-3 unique digits).
He amused us once by playing back a message that some random young child had left on his voicemail over the weekend, presumably after mashing keys on the phone. The interesting part was that it wasn't the first such voicemail he had, but it was generally from different random children.

Did you work with Woz?

911 is already used in the UK ...

[DrogMan]

For some local dialling codes. Eg. Bristol has 0117 911 xxxx - so from a landline in Bristol you just dial 911 xxxx ...

-G

Re:911 is already used in the UK ...

[Overzeetop]

Yeah, but on mobile you must hit "send" after the number, so it's not really an issue. The call gets routed by the mobile system digitally, not DTMF'd onto POTS.

Re:911 is already used in the UK ...

[knorthern knight]

> Yeah, but on mobile you must hit "send" after the number, so it's not really an issue.
> The call gets routed by the mobile system digitally, not DTMF'd onto POTS.

That may work for cellphones. But what about landlines? Or do you propose having one emergency number for cellphones and another one for landlines... in the same country?

Let's make a deal:

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the world will adopt 911 if the US adopts the metric system.

999

[200_success]

999 is easy to pocket-dial. It was good for the days of rotary-dial phones, but not so good for keypads in a pocket.

If possible...

[Red_Chaos1]

...why not use something like a CNAME record for 911 here in the US and have it go to 112 and then we won't have to worry about it.

This will never happen

[morgauxo]

Make both numbers work in both places - temporarily

Give up on arguing it out, use a coin toss or something similar to pick one.

Set a date to turn off the number not chosen

Advertise the hell out of the fact that the other one is going away for a couple years before actually doing it.

Shoot the next person who recommends anything like this only apply to one limited area in the increasingly global world.

The usefullness of non metric is hugely exagerated

[aepervius]

For every application where you will say it is useful over metric, you will only show that you have ingrained the imperial system and do not want to move on. order of magnitude to compare to human size stuff ? metric (centimeter / decimeter / Kg / Tons / liter etc...) gives an immediate gut estimate (i often see the cited example of "it is easier to use 4 foot 11 inches than 150 cm if you were used to it you would say 1.5 meter pronounced "1 meter 50" which is as easy than 4 foot 11 inches and much easier to use if I have 6 yards of clothes how many 5 foot 8 inches guy can I cover ? if I have 6 meter of clothes I just say 6/1.5=4 guys good luck with the example of yard/foot/inches without doing complicated conversion compared to a direct division). Conversion ? metric don't need them as much as imperial. So where the hell does it makes sense to use imperial ? There is a good reason the whole world moved on. The SI is as easy to grasp for people as any other system, but easier to teach, easier to use, and easier to NOT make error with.

So again *WHICH* advantage has imeprial over metric (except that you are used to it) ? before you answer about a particular felt flaw of metric, please google around to make sure it is a real flaw. Good luck on that.

South America

[dcsmith]

Bogota, Colombia initially implemented '123' as their emergency number (although they now allow 112 as well). I think Guatemala other Departments in Colombia use 123 as well.

In Brazil...

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Brazil and I don't use 911/112 you insensitive clod!

For the giggles, these are the numbers I have to know/have on my phone in order of whom will I call on an emergency:
192: Ambulance
193: Fire dept
190: Police (and, contrary to popular belief, NOT emergency)

The nice thing about 999

[Alain Williams]

is that you just keep on pressing the digit 9.

Have you ever been in an office somewhere: You pick up a 'phone to make a call and need to press a 9 to get an outside line. Other desks may have 'phones that are directly connected to the outside, so you do not need the 9. With 999 it is easy, you just keep going and dial 9999.

You might think that is stupid, why not just dial and see what happens, if it does not work try again with/without the leading 9. The trouble is that when you make an emergency call you are probably under stress or may not have a lot of time - so keep it easy.

Having said that I see nothing wrong with having several in use everywhere: 999, 112, 911, .... very easy with a modern 'phone system.

Re:The nice thing about 999

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the biggest sources of false calls to 911 are offices that have switched to a VOIP system. I've worked at 2 companies now that switched to VOIP and use 9 to get an outside line and then 1 to indicate you're dialing an area code (required almost all the time nowadays). This leaves you just one more '1' away from dialing 911. It happened an average of 3 times a month at both places causing the companies to get fined for false calls.

What's so stupid about the whole thing is they could very easily make it '8' or any other number for that matter to get an outside line.

Re:The nice thing about 999

[MichaelSmith]

Yeah something similar happens in Australia where the emergency number is 000. You dial 0 for an outside line then 0011 for an international number but if you do it from home and forget that you don't need an outside line then you get emergency services.

112

[Anonymous Coward]

112

Re:Well, the answer is obvious then. indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

there's no song 'bout 112 from a group that got rocknrollfame? status, so it's easy to remember 'PE number 1'
(would be 731 tho as 3rd alternative, and.. perfectly in the corners
of the dtmf touchpads as well)
check E.161, it would even be as fast being dialled
on a rotary phone as 911.not beating 112 tho.
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E/recommendation.asp?lang=en&parent=T-REC-E.161

112 and 000 both work on mobiles here

[MichaelSmith]

But I generally use 112 when calling emergency services from a mobile and I think it should be an international standard, not just a GSM standard. The only problem I know of is that 112 is fairly easy to dial by accident when joining cables if pulse dialing is supported.

Re:The usefullness of non metric is hugely exagera

[Darinbob]

Well of course it's ingrained. Otherwise we could move past it all with a brand new system that no country currently uses, thus politically neutral. But everyone would object since they're already used to meters and grams and would have to retool everything. The problem isn't that America is reluctant to change, but that everyone is reluctant to change.

What about...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

0118 999 881 999 119 725....3?

Re:The usefullness of non metric is hugely exagera

[maxwell demon]

Otherwise we could move past it all with a brand new system that no country currently uses

Actually when introduced, the metric system was exactly that.

Nuke em'!

[Anonymous Coward]

And see what they dial. That's the moment of truth.

Re:The usefullness of non metric is hugely exagera

[bill_mcgonigle]

So again *WHICH* advantage has imeprial over metric (except that you are used to it) ?

For construction purposes, the key advantage is that it's based on base-12, which has many more whole number divisors than base-10. Halves, quarters and thirds are trivial. That's why you can build a staircase without a calculator with dozenal math (you use the edge of the framing square that's marked in twelfths).

It's the most useful number system below base-60 (which is too hard for most humans). The metric system should have been regular and dozenal. Humans will get it right eventually, again (you'll note 'eleven' and 'twelve' are specially-named numbers).

Re:Whenever I need the assistance of Scotland Yard

[iarnell]

That would've been Whitehall 1212

Then start speaking Chinese

[knorthern knight]

> # of people using 112
> # of people using 911
> biggest # wins

> next topic on the agenda...

Standardizing on one language.

I used to butt dial 112 in Canada

[WoTG]

A couple phones ago on a candy-bar format Nokia, more than once I butt dialed 911 by dialling 112. Even if I locked my phone, since it was an "emergency" call, it would make the call. After the second time, I swore I would stick to flip phones forever... that lasted until smart phones came around. I still haven't managed to butt dial on a locked iPhone, so I guess that's progress.

Forget the number

[Anonymous Coward]

Just have a button labelled "Emergency" which you press at least three times in a row.

Should I patent this idea?

Make it up as you go along. 911 is here to stay.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Not quite.

Right, not quite at all.
> You forgot...

Yes, you forgot that vertical service codes don't start with 1 or any digit... they start with a *,
aren't three digits in length, and are implmented sporadically and not guaranteed to
exist across an entire network or even a country.

NANPA has been very clear.
1+ dialing means the number is long distance. The next 3 digits are either an NPA (mistakenly called "area code") or a LEC prefix.
That means that the second you dial "1" and then another 1, it's clear you're dialing a 7-digit number with a 1 in front of it (e.g. 1-12x-xxxx).
Neither the old tandems, the middle-of-the age 5Es nor the DMSs are set to accept "112" as a complete number. It was bad enough when
they tried to update them to handle 822+833+844+855+866+877+888 for FGD and found the failings in the software (and a mistake on the part of NANPA,
who could have just handed 880-889 as a much more easily programmable prefix... 1-88X for TFN. But no.)

112 will never be adopted in North America. I tell you this so that you can stop the whining early, because from reading this stuff it's clear most slashdot readers aren't interested in the technical details (how sad is that) but rather having stupid arguments about how the UN sucks. Yeah, the UN sucks. The ITU sucks. Europe and the US and PACrim have different systems. None of that is of any relevance whatsoever that 112 will ***never*** become a standard here.

Now you might ask "why 911???" The 9 prefix was unused, and is not available for NPAs. The quickest number you can dial on a DIAL-telephone is 911. (Remember, 9 took a long time to move the finger all the way clockwise and have it cycle back... but that was the only available prefix. After that, 1+1 is two short finger moves). 911 will be with us for the forseable future.

Now back to arguing about irrelevant stuff. Tech wise, 911 is here to stay.