FCC May Stop 911 Access For NSI Phones

An anonymous reader writes: It's generally known that if you call 911 from a cell phone in the USA, you will be connected to the nearest Public Safety Access Point, whether or not the phone has an active account. This is the basis for programs that distribute donated phones for emergency-only use. However, the FCC has proposed a rule change that would eliminate the requirement for telephone companies to connect 911 calls made by NSI (non-service-initialized) phones. The main reason for the proposed rule change are the problems caused by fraudulent 911 calls made through NSI phones. Yet respondents cited by the FCC show that as many as 30% of 911 calls from NSI phones are for legitimate emergencies. The comment period for the proposed rule change ends on June 6th, 2015.

Comments

Trolling Douchebags

[idontgno]

The main reason for the proposed rule change are the problems caused by fraudulent 911 calls made through NSI phones.

This is why we can't have nice things.

I wonder if the FCC will start a crusade against fraudulent 911 calls made through anonymous VOIP services? Maybe all 911 services? 'Cuz they're clearly getting abused.

Whew! I'm glad we're rid of that dirty bathwater. Too bad about the baby, though.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then fraudulent 911 calls need to be ruthlessly prosecuted and punished so people stop doing them, or you can pay for them. Make it mandatory. We can call it Obama911.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the problem; you cannot run down who the heck made the call or even who owns the phone since it is not provisioned and has no SIM. Even with a SIM it doesn't confirm that YOU made the call - perhaps you left the phone on your desk for a few minutes and someone used the lock screen 911 function. It wasn't you though. It is much worse with these phones as there isn't even anyone known as the owner to start looking into. It would be nice to prosecute them, but finding them is mostly impossible.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[mwvdlee]

Then disallow calling 911 from NSI phones and start giving away free but registered 911-only SIM cards with the phones.
Heck, make it empty but upgradable pre-paid cards and telecom providers will probably pay you money to give them away.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[LWATCDR]

70% are hoaxes.
A solution would be for the Cell carriers to be required to "register" those phones for free for 911 service.
Each must be attached to an id so you can bust people for swatting.
Not ideal but a compromise solution.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[alen]

or you can simply pay the $10 or $15 a month for phone service if you want 911

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[beelsebob]

Well, the question is simple. Do receiving 70% of the calls from NSI phones being trolls cause more irreversible consequences than not receiving the 30% that are not trolls.

It may well be that more than twice as many trolls in fact cause more legitimate emergencies to go unattended than simply not receiving the legitimate NSI calls causes.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[war4peace]

That's not what it's about. One could imagine a situation where kidnapped people would get their hands on a phone with no SIM card in it (or an inactive one) and dial 911. Take that away and it might kill people.
Yes, fraudulent 911 calls are a problem. But I'd rather have 100 of those for each legitimate call from an NSI phone which might save one or more lives.

This is yet another example where cost effectiveness mentality kills people.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[beelsebob]

The problem is that this doesn't solve the problem. The problem that NSI calling addresses is that not everyone is prepared. Maybe I (as a brit) visit the US, and don't get a temporary SIM while I'm there - my SIM can't be used to make any calls at all... Except for that crucial 911 call that I wasn't prepared for.

Handing out free 911-only SIMs doesn't make it so that someone who is unprepared can call.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with enforcement is that if the phone is donated and non-functional most of the time, what guarantees do you have that the person who registered the phone is still the same one using the phone?

Requiring registration does little more than pretend to be a solution. How the service will verify the identity of the person doing the registration in the first place?

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Flavianoep]

Quite easy if you happen to have a job (or another steady income source).

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Orange Crush]

I can imagine a situation where I call 911 with my phone (with current paid-for service) and help can't get to me because they're too busy checking out 100 prank phone calls from unregistered phones

This isn't about cost-effectiveness, it's about keeping our finite number emergency responders going after real emergencies.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[halivar]

Yes, fraudulent 911 calls are a problem. But I'd rather have 100 of those for each legitimate call from an NSI phone which might save one or more lives.

This is yet another example where cost effectiveness mentality kills people.

What about people placed on hold because the emergency lines are tied up? Making decisions with your feelings can kill people, too.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy to say until you or someone you know and love are the person being denied access to 911 because of this rule change.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[JoeMerchant]

What percent are hoaxes in registered phones?

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

I can imagine a situation where I call 911 with my phone (with current paid-for service) and help can't get to me because they're too busy checking out 100 prank phone calls from unregistered phones

If that's the problem, then you have an issue with people making prank phone calls to 911.

Why are they doing that? What is their reasoning? How can you stop them?

Don't think "Oh well, we'll just turn off the service and that'll fix it." when it is innocent victims who play the price.

This isn't about cost-effectiveness, it's about keeping our finite number emergency responders going after real emergencies.

But you're keeping them from going after real emergencies.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[aardvarkjoe]

Yes, fraudulent 911 calls are a problem. But I'd rather have 100 of those for each legitimate call from an NSI phone which might save one or more lives.

The attitude that any cost is acceptable for the chance of saving a life is a common problem.

There is a point where the resources devoted to your pet cause A could be more beneficial -- even in terms of saving lives -- if directed elsewhere.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[bobbied]

Then disallow calling 911 from NSI phones

This is EXACTLY what the FCC is trying to do.... The rest? Don't we already have free cell phone programs?

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[LordLimecat]

Take that away and it might kill people.

There are a lot of things that might kill people; to reduce the number of people killed to zero isnt possible, though you could pour endless resources into trying to do so.

The question is whether there are reasonable ways to provide access to 911 that do not themselves create worse problems like swatting; 70% of calls being fradulent starts to get into an area where legitimate services are impacted. Put another way: how many people die because legitimate resources were diverted by fraudulent calls?

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[LordLimecat]

This is the sort of logic that would block implementation of automated plane systems which could save thousands of lives per year because it might crash once or twice.

A system doesnt need to be perfect to be implemented as a replacement; it just has to be better, when you look at the big picture, than the thing it replaces.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know anyone who spends time charging and carrying around (as a phone) a phone that can only call 911. That is probably why there is so much fraud there - only people who want to play pranks bother with these. I mean, I guess I technically have one as I have an old phone in my car connected to the stereo. But if I were going to call 911 I would use my real phone and not my "music player". I only know one other person using an old phone for something similar. Most people either put them in a drawer or sell them to Gazelle or something.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[LordLimecat]

This is called a risk assessment, and its something that most people (and the media) have no patience for: its far too levelheaded, and not nearly hysterical enough.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy to say until you or someone you know and love are the person being denied access to 911 because of this rule change.

It's easy to say that it's that people are not denied access to 911 in case they need it until someone you know and love are (sic) the person being denied access to 911? I get the impression that the argument went completely over your head.

There is a minefield of potential unintended consequences, but the intent of all people involved in all sides of this argument is to maximise access to emergency services.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

A SIM from an operator that doesn't have a roaming agreement with either of the US GSM operators is different than a phone without a SIM or with a SIM that isn't registered with any operator. They could easily allow any identifiable SIM to make a 911 call, even if they won't let it make any other calls.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, troll, 70% are not hoaxes. RTFA. Less than 10% are hoaxes, most calls are non-emergency calls, which plenty of people with non-NSI phones make as well.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[mark-t]

True... but with a phone with an active account, the caller can be held accountable for making a non-emergency call to 911.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[mark-t]

Kind of like how back before cell phones were ubiquitous, you couldn't generally run down who the heck made a call to 911 from a pay-phone, you mean?

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Mashiki]

My grandmother used a NSI cell when she had VOIP service down in florida and for when she was traveling through the US. She was in her late 70's at the time, she had no need for a functioning cell, only the need in case there was an emergency. The best answer is to register the phones, and when some little shit rat decides to go "hur-dur-dur I'm in ur 911 fuckin' you up" slap them with the cost of dispatching EMS.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[responsibleusername]

I totally agree, we should also not use credit cards because there is fraud there, I don't want my bank wasting time on transactions that could be fraudulent that could tie up mine so lets stop that. Also, there is fraud in insurance claims so we should all just pay cash up front and get rid of all insurance as well. Seriously, if 30% are legitimate that is a huge percentage of legit calls to discard. Take some time to find ways to reduce the amount of fraud and increase funding of 911 to compensate, how this is even an issue? I'm sure the cell networks are more than happy to reduce their own costs though.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Archangel Michael]

One could imagine a situation where kidnapped people would get their hands on a phone with no SIM card in it (or an inactive one) and dial 911. Take that away and it might kill people.

I can imagine it, doesn't mean it will happen ... ever. But instead of making fun of people, explain it in simple terms.

Kidnappings are very rare. Everything after that is even more rare. All the "might" after that simply means that it is less likely to happen. At some point, there is practically no chance of it ever happening.

Might get kidnapped
Might get a cell phone
Might not be enable
Might be charged enough to work
Might get rescued

Any break in that is an escape clause for the need. I'm not kidnapped, I don't need. No cell phone access, I don't need. Already is active, don't have a need. Dead battery, don't have a need. Kidnappers find out I called 911 on their disabled phone that happened to be charged, kills me before I can be rescued.

Yes, it is ridiculous example, but it needs to be made for the people who don't want to think things through. Yes, stupid people exist, make stupid suggestions that sound all great and wonderful .. until ... logic is applied. These are Emotional arguments.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Archangel Michael]

But I'd rather have 100 of those for each legitimate call from an NSI phone which might save one or more lives

1?
10?
100?
1000?
10000?
100000?
1000000?

The problem isn't the idea, it is at what point does one say "no". Lets say for argument, His maximum is 100/1 ratio, which might be reasonable. But the chances of life saving from the phones might not reach even this threshold. The person making this statement didn't say that was his Max, he didn't say what his max was, leaving the statement as undefined, and that is the problem.

It is right up there with all sorts of various nebulous points, for instance "fair share" is never defined. I think everyone should pay their "fair share", but my idea and your idea of "fair share" are likely not even close to being related.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[afidel]

They're given out free to people in abuse shelters and the homeless which is probably the source of almost all of the legitimate traffic and the majority of the non-legitimate traffic as well (homeless folks tend to have mental problems as the root cause of their homelessness).

As to pranks, we've had E911 as a requirement for over a decade now, shouldn't be too hard to locate the perps if they keep doing it.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, none of the statistics presented include percent of effort spend on NSI phones vs in-service phones. If they are spending near the same resources on non-emergency calls for all phones, then why would you restrict these phones in particular? Maybe it's because phone companies don't want to support the older technology with backward compatible hardware, because that's expensive. Hm. Well, while there were no statistical comparisons of NSI vs in-service resource drain and there was no list of the impact on abused women shelters who use these phones as a lifeline for people who need them most. Guess what was included in the proposal? -- the fact that phone companies don't want to keep supporting 2G technology.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry but that's crap.. I'm a FF at a local dept and many times during the week we simply can't respond to a call because we are dealing with bullshlt. the local ambulance co (AMR) doesn't have enough boxes to run all the calls we miss, even with 2-3 times the number they couldn't handle it all. With ER waits in the hours and EMs crews required to wait with a patient until they are checked in by a nurse/doctor, 50-75% of EMS crews are taken off the street and when you combine that with fraudulent calls you might have one or two boxes for an area with a population in the 100K range and that's not enough....

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[TheCastro1689]

No it's not, in your example it would be taking off all the warning lights since the malfunction 70% of the time and replacing them with no warning lights.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[khallow]

True... but with a phone with an active account, the caller can be held accountable for making a non-emergency call to 911.

That's not going to happen because otherwise people will stop calling 911 for real emergencies. You don't want people to wonder if the heart attack they are witnessing is enough of an emergency that they should risk calling 911.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

>A solution would be for the Cell carriers to be required to "register" those phones for free for 911 service.

Registration.
For homeless people.
Many of whom have untreated mental illnesses.

Ha ha ha, that's a good one; you should be a comedian.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anubis IV]

70% are hoaxes.

The number is actually more likely in the range of 90-99%, if the official source is anything to go by. That "30% legitimate" number used in the summary was in regards to one county in Maryland in 2008 that was monitored for just one month, and it stands as an outlier that's an order of magnitude greater than some of the other numbers in the report. Why it was cherry-picked for the summary, I don't know, but here are all of the ones I found in the report (including the outlier):

in late 2006 from jurisdictions in four states, [an earlier report showed] that between 3.5% and less than 1% of 911 calls placed by NSI devices were legitimate calls relating to actual emergencies

Indiana estimated that over 90% of all NSI calls received were not legitimate

North Carolina similarly reported that between May 15, 2008 and June 15, 2008, PSAPs [Public Safety Answering Points, i.e. emergency call centers] across the state received 159,129 calls from NSI devices, of which 132,885, or 83.51%, were non-emergency calls, and an additional 11,395, or 7.16%, were “malicious” non-emergency calls

Tennessee states that during a three-month period in 2008, of over 10,000 NSI calls only 188 were valid emergencies.

Sonoma County, California indicates that between April 2011 and April 2013 only approximately 8% of calls from NSI devices were to report an emergency or crime

California, for example, stated that between October 1, 2007 and May 15, 2008, PSAPs across the state reported 266 active repetitive callers who placed over 77,000 calls to 911, mainly using NSI devices. Of the 266 callers identified, 85 had placed 200 or more calls, and eight callers had made more than 1,000 calls.

Peoria, Illinois similarly asserts that it got numerous calls from NSI phones that were used to harass the 9-1-1 telecommunicators and pump as many as 25 calls per day into Peoria's system, while few if any actual 9-1-1 calls came from these types of phones

Maryland indicated that 30% of calls to 911 from NSI handsets were legitimate in Montgomery County during the one-month period studied in 2008

There were a number of additional statements from various jurisdictions recounting their experiences with NSI E911 calls that used vague terms such as "vast majority", "biggest problem", "totally inundated", "inundated with phone calls from these phones with the only purpose being to harass the call takers/dispatchers", and "fraudulent calls to 911 from NSI devices constitute a large and continuing drain on public safety resources". There were also a number of statements describing the sorts of problems these calls are causing, such as "calls from a single child in one night nearly immobilized the call center's ability to receive actual emergency calls" and "receiving 911 calls from a non-initialized cellular phone [...] tied up one of our 911 trunks and made it unavailable for emergency calls", so it's clear that it's a major drain on their limited resources, since these calls account for a disproportionate amount of the total call volume, yet account for a disproportionately low amount of the legitimate calls.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Gaerek]

Here's the other side of the coin you aren't thinking about. This coming from someone who works at a PSAP and answers those emergency lines. First, in my experiences, the number of legit 911 calls from NSI phones is no where close to the 30% cited. It's probably closer to 5-10%. Most are butt dials or kids playing with a deactivated old iphone their parents gave them. The real problem is the amount of time we have to spend dealing with these fraudulent or illegitimate calls from NSI phones. It's time that could be spent, oh I don't know, answering a legitimate call. Instead, I have to rebid the phone to try to get phase 2 location information which is sometimes quick, but other times can take significant time. Not to mention place a call for service which takes time, but also ties up resources that could be better spent, oh, I don't know responding to a legitimate call. Or, its someone who knows they can only dial 911 and abuse that...use your imagination to how that could be used. Although your "what if" is plausible, it's highly improbable. And leaving NSI phones the way they are could cause a delayed response to a legitimate emergency, which could kill someone.

And keep in mind, what I consider a legitimate call isn't necessarily an emergency call either. It's pretty damn rare to get a legitimate emergency call from an NSI phone. Usually it's someone reporting a stolen phone or some other low priority. This isn't about cost effectiveness, it's about efficient use of limited resources. It sucks watching officers do the 911 hangup/open line wild goose chase when there's legit emergencies to respond to.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

The best answer is to register the phones, and when some little shit rat decides to go "hur-dur-dur I'm in ur 911 fuckin' you up" slap them with the cost of dispatching EMS.

I'd go a few steps further than that even.

I can't really say the best way to go about logging info about the cell phone used, but it would be lovely for the 911 operator to see a little "NSI" flag on their board for the call, and the cell tower positioning data from the phone company in real time. Hell, throw in the GPS cords of the phone if available, or require the cell company and/or NSA to hand them over upon request (since they won't stop recording that data anyway)

The part I would change however is what to do about the prank callers and swatters.
911 operators are good at determining obvious prank calls (callers ordering pizza, butt dialings, etc) - but those intentionally trying to call the swat team on someone are more difficult to determine since the swatters goal is to sound fully legitimate.

The swatting type of "prank" should be treated no differently than if that person pointed a loaded weapon at my head with fully disclosed intentions to pull the trigger and kill me, since that is exactly what they attempted to do and were only foiled by a real swat officer cluing in on the situation being what it is (hopefully)

Attempted murder 2nd degree, and all the many federal charges for abusing a phone system, should land them at least life in prison on a murder charge, or best case for them a couple decades for an attempted murder charge (murder in the 1st or 2nd degree that was foiled by a third party)

Put more of these ass hats in prison for the murders they in whole intended to commit, and the practice might end up being less than 60% of calls from these non-registered cell phones.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[TheCastro1689]

35% of 911 calls are for non-emergencies, in some areas it's as high as 75%. People call asking for directions and such too. I've called my local police direct number and it gets routed to 911 automatically.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[jittles]

The problem is that the language from that report suggests that some of the calls may be legitimate, but non-emergency calls. People call 911 all the time for the stupidest things. For instance, calling 911 to report a fender bender. That is entirely inappropriate, and a complete drain on emergency resources.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt they are "hoaxes". These phones go to an extremely poor and uneducated section of the population. These are the people who call 911 not as a hoax or a joke, but that they think getting locked out of their home is an emergency for 911. They are also those that have been taken care of by the government for their entire life, so why wouldn't they call 911 for help to find their boyfriend at the bar who was supposed to be home hours ago?

It boils down to lack of education...

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone else posted evidence of earlier, it's actually closer to 1-3% legitimate calls. So 100 calls for every 1 that (potentially) saves a life is not far off.

How many of those 1% do you think come from phones that a person just found lying around while escaping a kidnapper or some other problem?

I think requiring a SIM card attached to a real name is a perfectly valid solution, and would almost certainly be undertaken for free by phone companies because then they'd already have a hook in you for once you actually have money to start paying for phone service.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a SIM, that would be good enough. The information gleaned from that during a 911 hoax could eventually be traced back to you if it was worth the police resources to do so.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[spire3661]

NO NO NO. For god's sake its like no one values privacy at all. ANONYMITY IS OK. WE have to learn to deal with the fact that we should not be able to trace EVERYTHING.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[mark-t]

I think you are completely misunderstanding the kinds of non-emergencies that people call in to 911... here's a big hint, they are *never* related to situations where someone's life or long-term safety could be reasonably believed to be in some kind of danger. Heart attacks, even though they can often not be fatal, are well within the domain of emergency. Examples of what are *NOT* emergencies are calling 911 to get driving directions, or finding the nearest liquor store, or complaining that the stores are closed and you need to buy a present for your friend for their wedding tomorrow morning (that's an emergency, right?). These are but a sampling of the kinds of the actual non-emergencies that people call 911 about, and the caller is fined appropriately (although in many cases, they are given a warning if it is their first such infraction, and if it happens again, then they are fined). A friend of mine that used to be a 911 dispatch operator always had some really funny stories to tell about some of his more memorable callers. What is less funny, however, is the fact that such calls can and sometimes do interfere with their ability to properly handle real emergencies, and it is why the behavior needs to be discouraged. I don't advocate disallowing 911 calls from non-activated phones personally, because I think it may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as it were... but I can completely understand the reasoning behind why it may be desirable.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[barc0001]

The "cost effectiveness" he's talking about is that rather than hiring more 911 operators and emergency staff to handle the additional volume (and create jobs at the same time), they instead look at eliminating all calls from NSI phones to keep volumes manageable, at the cost of cutting some legitimate users of 911 out.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[DraconPern]

How about people using NSI phones for swatting? It's not just an imaginary situation.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[LWATCDR]

Calling 911 is not a private act. it is a request for public resources.
This is only for none registered phones which can only call 911.
Privacy has nothing to do with this since cell phones 911 calls are also geolocated.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[LWATCDR]

"How the service will verify the identity of the person doing the registration in the first place?"
With a photo id.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets say for argument, His maximum is 100/1 ratio, which might be reasonable. But the chances of life saving from the phones might not reach even this threshold.

Except they clearly do. I'd even venture to guess they get up to about 30/100, assuming you can do basic fractions.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Tyger]

Or you call 911 with your phone (with current paid-for service) and can't get through because you're out in the middle of nowhere and the only signal you get is not the one you paid for, and since you're somewhere remote the chance of someone else coming across you is slim.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[chilenexus]

> automated plane systems which could save thousands of lives per year because it might crash once or twice.

I haven't heard of a plane that has crashed twice, usually once will do the job.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Solandri]

A solution would be for the Cell carriers to be required to "register" those phones for free for 911 service.
Each must be attached to an id so you can bust people for swatting.

The NSI phones still have a unique IMEI. It would be trivial for the companies to cross-reference it to find out who the phone's original owner was.

The problem I suspect is that most of these prank calls are made using NSI phones which are no longer in the possession of their original owners. Stolen, lost, sold, given to a "friend", etc. So forcing them to be registered wouldn't help any. I keep an old phone (powered off) in my car, just in case there's an accident which destroys my regular phone and I need to make a 911 call. Even if I wanted to make a prank 911 call, I would never make it with that phone because of how easily the police could trace it back to me, since it's my old phone.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[chilenexus]

Was that their "business" line or their "emergency" line? I've tried calling my local PD for non-life-threatening stuff I've witnessed before, and the non-emergency number appears to keep even less helpful hours than banks. Since police departments aren't normally geared for the customer-service mindset, they don't tend to set up their interfaces in a manner that makes sense to the callers in the same way it was intended by the receivers. And no one really expects to call and find the police department closed if there isn't a gun or knife threatening your life.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, damn "cost effectiveness" there should be a law that says that there has to be a 911-operator for every person in the county!

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[chilenexus]

I'm curious what the call rate is at centers like that - what gets portrayed in the media is either a room with 20-40 people constantly taking calls all day long, or a closet with 2 people in it, who get a couple calls a day. The closest one I've actually been in was a backup fire dispatch center that was about to be decommissioned (it was really old) in favor of its replacement, and it had room for 3-4 (uncomfortably). How many calls per hour would you estimate your center receives, and how big is the area it serves, population-wise?

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

> I think you are completely misunderstanding the kinds of non-emergencies that people call in to 911...

I think you are just engaging in rationalization by taking the worst cases and generalizing them as the common case.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[mysidia]

This is why we can't have nice things.

This is totally a bogus reason why we can't. I think a better strategy would be a different screening process from emergency calls in from a NSI phone, Or tougher regulation on the distribution of NSI phones.

Perhaps new ones should have to contain a 'FCC ID CHIP', which is crypto-signed, and cannot be distributed without someone showing a drivers' license and ownership being recorded at the point of distribution.

Or require providers to initialize an "Emergency Only" service upon request for a nominal fee, which would cause the FCC ID CHIP to become registered in a national database, so all carriers have to accept the device.

There should be some system where life/death emergency call devices can be guaranteed to work for emergencies, without having to pay for full blown telephone service.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

Those free cell phone programs depend on allowing NSI phones to call 911.

So yes, we do, but we wont.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Minwee]

I haven't heard of a plane that has crashed twice, usually once will do the job.

I see that you have never flown American Airlines.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[mysidia]

How about call screening? You call in from a NSI telephone, then you are connected to an IVR. Before you are connected to a dispatcher, you have to listen to a 5 second voice prompt, and confirm that a person's is in immediate danger of death or severe injury by saying 1 or saying 'emergency', Please press 2 or say 'support' for any other problem.

If '2' is requested, the call will be redirected to a special police non-emergency number If '1' is requested, then a second screening stage will request caller to specify what kind of emergency, "At the tone, please say your name and press #", "At the tone, please say your year and month of birth and press #", next they will be connected to a live operator who will gather their information; if the recorded name and DOB were each an appropriate number of seconds.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Notabadguy]

Or - instead of having a choice between a paid service plan, or a non-paid service plan with no registration....

Perhaps there's a middle ground where people can register a phone to their name and service for zero dollars, with the phone only capable of making 911 calls. There's no reason that donated phones can't be attached to a new owner.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[mysidia]

I haven't heard of a plane that has crashed twice, usually once will do the job.

I believe in the US... once a plane crashes, it is going out of commercial service permanently, as it would need a total overhaul --- even if the body of the plane survives, they are not going to risk the potential liability of flying equipment that might not be 100%.

However... in New Zealand, there was a time when a plane crashed twice in one day; it crashed again after the supposedly minor damage from the first crash was repaired.

I do not believe this kind of scenario would play out on a commercial flight with passengers on board ---- again, too risky for the airlines to allow a crashed plane back in service after "minor" repairs. No amount of inspection will clear up the political faux pas, if a plane brought back in service after an initial crash does crash again, and passengers are injured in the 2nd crash.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[mysidia]

I don't know anyone who spends time charging and carrying around (as a phone) a phone that can only call 911.

These days there are purpose-built emergency phones. You don't need to charge. You use lithium batteries which last a long period of time (shelf life), as there is no draw from the cell until you need to activate the emergency-only device.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

What should people do instead? If you need a police report for insurance purposes, you need to call the police. Most people don't know the police non-emergency number (which, the one time I needed, I couldn't find in a phone book either), so they call 911.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[rgbscan]

My town does this after hours too and I had no idea. After I big storm I dialed the local police non emergency number to tell them of a cracked and dangling branch hanging over a children's play area at a park where I walk my dog. Not urgent but it should probably be near the top of park and rec's things-to-fix when they show up on Monday. But being after hours (7pm on a weekend) it rolled over to county 911 and I felt pretty stupid as it clearly was a waste of the dispatchers time.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

The simple solution is to put out the word that NSI phones can no longer place 911 calls. In order for all phones to access 911, they must be registered and subscribe to a carrier with a federally mandated $1/month emergency only plan by the carrier via credit card. If you can't afford $1/month tough shit. I'm sure the carriers would lose a little money, though the hit would be minimal, as the number of people who actually have a NSI phone for emergencies is pretty damn small. If they did prank 911, the carriers and police will have their name and address attached to the credit card used to pay for the service, as well as the name and address they give to the carrier when they sign up. Problem solved.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

I only know of one which is a tricounty huge dispatch center. Three floors, over a hundred on staff for two of three shifts. Their call count is tiny compared to a help desk of the same size. Maybe abut four calls hour per person during peak capacity i.e. tornado strike. The idea of having anyone wait to get hold of a 911 dispatcher is, aside from huge emergencies like 9/11, a myth. It is the doomsday scenario that the dispatch centers use to get more funding. The public, at least in my area, would never allow a situation where someone had to wait on hold.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[mark-t]

Except that those worst cases are exactly the kinds of non-emergencies that people call 911 about... really stupid stuff that people should genuinely *know* better than to call 911 over. *THOSE* are the ones that can and sometimes actually do end up getting fined for such abuse

Of course, I could just assume that my friend was exaggerating, or maybe simply lying about his experiences on the job, but I really have no reason to do so.

The aforementioned example of a heart attack of unknown severity would never be considered to be a non-emergency, and would thus also never be fined.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually read the article, the 30% number is an anomaly in one county. The vast majority 90% and above, are non-emergency use (Burger King is closed and I'm hungry) or malicious pranks. The simplest solution is to require all phones to be registered via drivers license or state ID and billed a nominal fee $1/month on a credit card to be active for 911.

The theoretical scenario of someone being kidnapped and getting access to a phone with no sim chip is just bleeding heart BS. Whose phone is the kidnapee must likely to get? Their own? That had a sim in it right? Any kidnapper with half a brain smashes that thing first off as it has GPS and you can never tell if it is truly turned off. The kidnapper's phone? Shit that thing is sure to work, the kidnapper is making calls to his boss/ransom calls etc. He might turn it off, but it will be functional, though probably behind a password, which can still be bypassed for a 911 call.

Right now, real people are dying because some little shits are abusing the system and tying up 911 and emergency response. As an alternative to the above, provide 911 with the unique IMEI id number of the phone, and if the emergency is a prank or for repeated non-emergency calls, BRICK THE DAMN PHONE by remote.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[fulldecent]

Good point. If someone places 200+ calls to 911 and they are not stopped, this is a failure of E911, not the NSI policies.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly. how do calls from the NSI devices compare to calls from activated devices or wireline telephones?

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

People call 911 all the time for the stupidest things. For instance, calling 911 to report a fender bender. That is entirely inappropriate, and a complete drain on emergency resources.

From the government's own lips:

In an emergency, call 911 or your local emergency number immediately from any wired or wireless phone.

An emergency is any situation that requires immediate assistance from the police, fire department or ambulance. Examples include:

- A fire

- A crime, especially if in progress

- A car crash, especially if someone is injured

I was taught to call 911 if it's time-dependent. So potholes are 311. Car crashes are 911.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

Like what happens already during an emergency event?

How's that smoked red herring these days?

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

I can imagine a situation where I call 911 with my phone (with current paid-for service) and help can't get to me because they're too busy checking out 100 prank phone calls from unregistered phones

This isn't about cost-effectiveness, it's about keeping our finite number emergency responders going after real emergencies.

Hey Orange Crush, what about 7 out of 10?

BTW, those 3 of 10 callers who have an unregistered phone are probably in more dire consequences than your FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS, err I meant (with current paid-for service) . . . also, they're probably not located around your privileged ass, location-wise, so you're unaffected. So, your 911 operators are probably dealing with drunk 1%ers calling in because their spouse stole the jaguar.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because someone making a prank call is going to use their actual name and DOB.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubt that would matter to malicious callers lying to 911.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

This a pattern I've seen before. These people aren't trolls.

They've got mental health issues.

I'm not a mental health expert but I've worked in government and nonprofit social services all of my career and this sort of behavior isn't unusual for someone who's got serious mental health issues who, for lack of a better non-clinical term, "off their meds".

All over the country public mental health budges have been slashed and the mentally ill homeless (Two demographics with a large and completely not co-incidental overlap) don't just go away. They simply seek every other resource at their disposal. People with zero social filters, as often the desperate and mentally ill are, may do things like flood 911 with calls.

Maybe because they're lonely, or maybe because they think chem trails are poisoning their air, or maybe because the grass is green. Being insane will make you do things like that.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[war4peace]

The situation you are mentioning is still a result of the cost effective mentality. If people are too busy checking the prank calls, it means there aren't enough people hired to do the job. They have to have enough people to accommodate the prank calls AND the legitimate ones.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

If phone trunks are filling up and call desks are shortstaffed, it's obvious that 911 service is inadequately scaled.
The solution is NOT to deprive callers of the ability to call for help from wherever and however they can.
It is to FIX THE 911 SYSTEM from where the REAL PROBLEM lies.... the INSIDE.

Also voice recognition and triangulation and tower records and ESN/IMEI are all present and fully capable of tracking down and busting fradulent callers. That legwork needs to be done FIRST before they go and try to deny calls from that old phone you keep in your glovebox plugged into the cigarette lighter socket.

Lastly, 911 is a joke for any type of mass casualty situation.
And also for most life saving things you can think of...
Gunpoint... buy a gun and fire back.
Dead body... call the mortician.
Thief... let them walk.
Fire... use your garden hose.
Lawnmower accident... stop the blood and ask the nearest person to drive you to the hospital so you don't have to wait on the ambulance.

The only time you genuinely need 911 is if your cardiopulmonary or brain systems aren't working.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[khallow]

No, I'm not misunderstanding the kind of non-emergencies. I've heard those stories before. But since we have demonstrated that we have those kinds of people in the world, we have demonstrated that my concerns are valid.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[mark-t]

The fines that I speak of are something that is already here... now. They've existed for years, and those fines don't even really seem to stop some people from calling about things that AREN'T emergencies, as I mentiioned above.... what makes you think it would stop someone from calling because somebody is having a heart attack?

Frankly, I can't even imagine if anyone has ever questioned whether someone is having a heart attack of unknown severity is considered justification to call 911 simply because they know they will be fined if it is determined to not be an emergency.... because it's absurd to even *think* that it would not be considered legitimate by the dispatcher. The only way it would even be a problem is if you actually knew they were not having a heart attack and were just trying to prank 911... of course, if when the emergency team arrives, you claim to have genuinely believed the person was having a heart attack, then you probably wouldn't be fined... but you would likely receive a warning, and probably even given an educational leaflet on how to identify such things in the future.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[khallow]

what makes you think it would stop someone from calling because somebody is having a heart attack?

Because they don't want to pay the fines?

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

Works great for those $5 TracFone's I buy with cash at 7-11...

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

This would fail for caller-under-duress scenarios. Like the lady who called 911 to "order pizza" for example.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

Not your fault. They should do like my local medical clinic does, and have a pre-recorded messages explaining that if it's an emergency, hang up immediately and dial 111 (911 in your case), or to wait on the line for an automatic attendant. Automatic redirect to an emergency dispatch is negligent phone system design on their part.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[mark-t]

I've given examples from real life that shows that people actually *do* abuse 911, even if they are somehow examples of what *NOT* to do... and the above cited a hypothetical scenario that there's not a shred evidence is, or has ever been, a real-world concern.

And somehow *I'm* just engaging in rationalization and trying to generalize a worst case scenario as common?

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Gaerek]

I work for a county sheriff's dept. There's close to 2 million population wise in the county, but our jurisdiction covers only about 500,000 people. The incorporated municipalities within the county cover the other 1.5 million or so. My center dispatches police only. We're what's known as a Primary PSAP. We receive the initial 911 call from the public. From there, we determine whether the emergency is police, fire or medical in nature and triage the call accordingly. If it's fire or medical, we transfer it to the proper fire/ems Secondary PSAP. Almost all of our employees at the center are cross trained to do dispatch and call taking, though we don't do both at the same time as what happens in smaller centers. All of our call takers are also responsible for answering non-emergency lines, internal communications lines (dedicated lines for the officers to call in), hot lines (or ring downs, depending on what term you use) from other agencies, in addition to the 911 lines.

All that said, we receive over 1000 calls per day from the public, which translates to somewhere around 300-350 calls for service daily. Of course, this number varies based on many different things. Day of the week, time of the year, holidays, etc. For example, Monday mornings are usually very busy because people who put off calling over the weekend, are going to try on their way to work, or before work. Friday and Saturday nights are usually pretty busy as well. At any given time, we'll have anywhere from 1-7 dedicated call takers on shift. This number varies based on time of day, day of the week, whether breaks are being given, etc. Our center is very lucky in that we have nearly 90% of our optimal work force. Most centers are operating near 70% due to the high turnover and difficulty and time needed to train new dispatchers (my training, including classroom and on the job took 22 weeks from start to finish, and less than half that started with me made it through).

Calls per hours is difficult to calculate. We could just take 1000/24 to get about 42 calls per hour, but that really doesn't fit what the actual experience is. I still haven't figured out why, but calls come in in waves for some reason. It could be dead for 30 minutes, with only 4 or 5 calls coming in, then all of a sudden the phone blows up and you have 5 call takers answering lines constantly for an hour, and having to put some lines on hold to deal with the volume. Staffing is set up to deal with the spikes. And we know basically when the spikes typically happen. We do have a decent amount of downtime, but when the calls come in, you need enough bodies to answer them.

Having said all that, there are some centers that are literally 1 person, they answer phones and dispatch. Then you get others that look like the call center in "The Call" (terribly inaccurate movie, btw) that service big cities, like LA or NY. I'd imagine most centers are more like the one I work in. Not huge, but not small. Anyway, hope that answered some of your questions. Got a bit long winded. Anything else you're curious about? Ask away.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[khallow]

You've also stated that the fine typically is not enforced except in particularly egregious cases.

And somehow *I'm* just engaging in rationalization and trying to generalize a worst case scenario as common?

I have to wonder upon reading this, if you really read what I posted. I haven't said or implied that.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[LWATCDR]

Don't worry they have a picture of you buying it.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[mark-t]

The aforementioned post suggested that with the existence of such fines, people may actually hesitate to call 911 in the event that they believed someone was having a heart attack, so yes... you did imply it.

Except of course it isn't feasible... as evidenced by the fact that nobody would ever get fined for calling 911 when the caller sincerely believed that someone was having a heart attack, even if they were mistaken in that belief.

But abuses of 911 still happen... and their chief problem is that they can and sometimes do interfere with their ability to deal with actual emergencies. The fines exist to hold people accountable for such abuse, but with a NIS phone, there is nobody to really hold accountable. Of course, there was nobody to really hold accountable for 911 abuse calls made from pay phones either... which also had no fee to call 911. I would imagine with NIS cell phones, however... it as an issue of scale.

I do not advocate disallowing NIS cell phones from calling 911, however, unless they can show that the 30% of actual emergency calls made from NIS phones, however low that might be considered, would have feasibly been reported just as quickly if NIS phones were not allowed to call 911.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

In my area, the police don't have a non-emergency number, at least not one that they go to any trouble to publicize. If you want to talk to the police, you call 911. I've had to use 911 to report broken stoplights, burglaries of my home, and a mugging I experienced, and I felt pretty bad about it, but I knew of no other way to reach the police.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

(Same AC with a follow-on comment)
In fact, the first words out of my mouth in all of those cases is "this is not an emergency." Maybe it's pointless, but I'm hopeful that it allows the operator to perhaps place me on hold (which has never happened) in order to deal with a higher-priority call.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[khallow]

The aforementioned post suggested that with the existence of such fines, people may actually hesitate to call 911 in the event that they believed someone was having a heart attack, so yes... you did imply it.

Yes, I still believe that. And yes, I don't believe that that extends to:

And somehow *I'm* just engaging in rationalization and trying to generalize a worst case scenario as common?

Moving on, you still miss the point. Sure, currently there are fines and such, but almost no one triggers them, even on phones where they can be traced. If you shift to a regime where you try to enforce that sort of rule, then the kind of idiots who make frivolous 911 calls in the first place will start hearing about people who have to pay the fine, but either won't hear or won't understand the context behind the fine. That situation is a disincentive to call 911 in an actual emergency. Hence, my concern about prioritizing enforcing the rules over getting emergencies reported.

I notice that the real problem seems to be lack of funding of emergency services rather than any actual problem with nuisance calls. That may be combined with an ulterior motive from the US federal authorities to get rid of NSI phones (or whatever they're actually called).

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know anyone who spends time charging and carrying around (as a phone) a phone that can only call 911.

I carry two. I take them with me when bicycle riding on rural roads, just in case someone does a hit-and-run and I need to call an ambulance for myself.

Keeping them charged is no big deal. I just put masking tape over the battery terminals, then if I need to use the phone I remove it and the battery is fully charged. Thus I just need to put it on the charger now and then to make sure it stays charged. Likely not the best charging practice, but if I need the phone, it only needs to work for five minutes.

As for why I have two: Well, I don't have much faith that the damn things will actually call 911 if I need them to, so I hope that if one won't work, then maybe the other will work.

As for these bad calls, I suspect there's two causes behind the majority of them:

1. People giving old phones to their kids as toys, assuming that since the phone has no service it cannot make calls. Then an unsupervised toddler proceeds to call 911 hundreds of times before the parent notices what is happening.

2. The same thing that causes so many other illegitmate 911 calls: Pocket dialing. Unknown to most people, many cell phones will allow you to dial 911 without unlocking the keypad. This is less of a problem with newer phones which have touch displays that require fingers, but older phones (like the kind this article speaks of) quite likely have actual buttons and, even with the keypad locked, all it takes is to sit on the phone just right so as to hit 9, 1, 1 and send, and it makes a call.

I doubt there's a real problem here, at least not one beyond the problem of unwanted 911 calls in the general population of phones. More than likely a cell phone carrier is behind this, hoping to cash in as the provider of "emergency 911 cell phones" such that they can get $5/month by providing service for a cell phones that, in the majority of cases, will never make any calls.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[mark-t]

I haven't been suggesting that they should be enforcing it any more than they already are.... I'm just saying that a traceable phone line at least holds somebody accountable for when and where abuse *does* occur. I don't argue that are some circumstances that may warrant remaining anonymous when reporting a situation to proper authorities, but all of the ones I can think of are not real emergencies, per se. Can you think of *ANY* that are remotely feasible on matters that a 911 emergency response team would be dispatched to? Why would someone reporting that somebody is having a heart attack be less likely to report it if they knew that their identity was more likely known? While actually holding people accountable, even if you don't necessarily always issue the fine, at least to some extent diminishes the number of abuses that would otherwise certainly occur.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[khallow]

Can you think of *ANY* that are remotely feasible on matters that a 911 emergency response team would be dispatched to?

Absolutely, Joe Paranoid is sure the government is listening in on his conversations, so he gets a NSI phone to protect himself from Big Brother. Later he sees a bad pile up on the highway and tries to phone it in.

Why would someone reporting that somebody is having a heart attack be less likely to report it if they knew that their identity was more likely known?

Because they're worried about picking up a fine like their buddy, Thad did. Thad was just asking where the ABC store was. If they'll fine you for that, who knows what else they'll fine you for.

That's been my point all along. You can't really crack down on casual 911 abuse, except in egregious cases, because otherwise you scare people away from legitimate use. You don't want any such considerations getting in the way of someone's life.

While actually holding people accountable, even if you don't necessarily always issue the fine, at least to some extent diminishes the number of abuses that would otherwise certainly occur.

But it would create other problems. And I'm just not seeing here a sufficient reason to block NSI phones unless there really is a lot of abuse coming from these phones. Most people are complaining about things like butt-dialing or people trying to solve mundane, non-emergency problems which is not exclusive to these phones.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[khallow]

I just read the AC comment and get your point about "rationalization" and such now. I think they were unfair to you.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[mark-t]

Absolutely, Joe Paranoid is sure the government is listening in on his conversations, so he gets a NSI phone to protect himself from Big Brother.

Why is he worried about the government listening to conversations he has on a phone that he can't even use to have a regular conversations in the first place because it isn't even activated or registered? The *ONLY* number he could call is 911, and every single 911 call is recorded anyways.

While actually holding people accountable, even if you don't necessarily always issue the fine, at least to some extent diminishes the number of abuses that would otherwise certainly occur.

But it would create other problems.

Again with the "would".... you seem to be under the impression that there is no accountability right now. There's already accountability with absolutely any phone line that can be traced to its holder, and with the current amount of accountability, there's absolutely no indication that anyone who calls 911 over what they believe is a sincere emergency would be more worried about being recorded or traced than they are with addressing the emergency.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[strikethree]

It sucks watching officers do the 911 hangup/open line wild goose chase when there's legit emergencies to respond to.

Perhaps they could NOT respond to those types of calls from NSI phones? Being able to dial 911 from anything anywhere seems too useful to just throw away entirely.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Gaerek]

The problem with that is one of liability. What if something is happening to the person who called and the phone hangs up suddenly for some reason (attacker turns off phone, phone is dropped and broken, etc). Although these are fairly rare, it does happen quite often in domestic situations. It's amazing how often the victims have a change of heart after they've dialed 911. Essentially if the department had a blanket policy of no response to NSI phones unless there's reason to believe someone is wrong is opening up the dept for a huge lawsuit.

Having said that, our sergeants have discretion to not respond to hangups/open lines. Usually if there's a good location, regardless of what was or wasn't heard on the other line, we will send someone to check it out. Most sergeants are reluctant to not respond because if there is an actual emergency and we don't respond, the liability falls on their shoulders. So they usually want a good reason not to go before they declare negative response. Most of the time it'll be based on how good the location information is. If it's under 100m uncertainty, we're gonna go. If it's 1000m, we probably won't. Unfortunately, it's our lawsuit happy society that dictates this, not common sense.

I want to make it clear I don't have a problem with there being phones that only have 911 capability. I have a problem with every single cell phone, ever made, having that capability automatically. There have been some good suggestions in these threads. 911 only SIMs. Allowing people who want the capability of dialing 911 from their deactivated phone to register it with a carrier, etc. I'll be honest, if this were an all or nothing thing, I'd be on the side of keeping it the way it is. But this is a big enough problem that it's worth working on solutions for. Allow deactivated phones to be registered as "911 only" for free. But make it require an action. When you deactivate a phone or pull the sim card, you should remove it's ability to make any kind of call. But you should have the option to allow it to make emergency calls, if you want to. I think that's quite a fair compromise that won't be detrimental to public safety while at the same time allowing emergency resources to be used more efficiently. Its a win-win.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Gaerek]

I'm just curious where you're getting your information from. 100's on staff? Yet only 4 calls per hour PEAK? I'd be wanting my money back if I were a taxpayer. My center (where I work) is at 90% staffing which is almost unheard of in this industry. And the 90% isn't just some arbitrary staffing level some bean counter decided would be good. It's based on decades of research, by APCO and other industry organizations that look at a variety of different variables. I'll admit, there are times when I may only answer 4 calls in an hour, but there are also times where I'm answering 30 calls in an hour, with several lines on hold. In an 8 hour shift, it's not uncommon for me to answer 100 calls in a shift.

You say the public wouldn't allow a situation where someone had to wait on hold? I'll tell you it's impossible for that situation to never arise unless you have way more people answering phones than you should. The thing about staffing a PSAP is it's all about compromise. If you staff for minimal call load, you'll put yourself in a world of hurt when something big happens. If you staff so that no one ever has to hold, then 90% of the time you're paying people to sit around and do nothing most of the time. Optimal is somewhere near the middle. I know we're talking about 911, the emergency number, but most calls that come in through 911 are not emergencies and can be put on hold without affecting the outcome. One of the most annoying phrases we have to listen to all day is, "Well, it's not really an emergency, but..." The thing is though, if you call because you believe someone is breaking into your home, for example, I would never put you on hold. I will stay on that line until the situation is resolved. In actual emergencies you will not be put on hold unless absolutely needed.

I'm glad I don't live in your area. I'd be pissed to have to pay those workers to only answer 32 calls in an 8 hour period. I'm guessing you really don't know what it's like there. You're assuming to make it sound like putting a 911 call on hold is a bad thing. I don't look at it like that. It's not about the line someone calls in, it's about the content of the call. If you're calling because someone stole your phone? Guess what, not an emergency and you can hold for real emergencies.We'll respond but it'll be the lowest priority we can assign to a call. If 50 people are calling to report the same thing (traffic light blinking red/not working, traffic accident, etc), guess what? Once we get the initial call in, we can be very selective about who we talk to, and those lines can hold.

I tell this to a lot of people because most people have no idea what it's like working in one of these centers. People think they do. But they're mostly wrong. My suggestion is contact them and see if you can arrange a "sit-along." Just like most police departments allow ride alongs with officers, they also a lot of times let the public sit with a call taker/dispatcher. It's easier to formulate opinions when you see what the job is actually like. Most of the time it's not that exciting. You'll see exactly why your 4 calls an hour at peak is absolutely ridiculous. Even though I answer 100 calls in a shift, I will usually only get 1 actual "life or death" emergency, but more often than not its more like 0. Most of the time it's people wanting police reports for various things like harassment, theft, vandalism, etc.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Gaerek]

They actually don't. The Federal Program gives actual working phones with usable minutes and even text messaging.

http://www.obamaphone.com/

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Gaerek]

I work at a PSAP and without seeing our hard data (we usually don't publish this data and it's usually not even available for 911 dspatchers to see) but from experience, 70% illegitimate is way too low. It's easily over 90%. Most prank calls come in from NSI phones, for 2 reasons. 1) People for some reason think we can't get location information from them...completely wrong. 2) Parents give their old deactivated iPhones to their kids thinking it can't make calls anymore, and they either accidentally dial 911 while playing, or get bored and do it because of 1) above.

Allow me to give you an anecdote from my last time on shift. Our center received 10 calls from the same phone over a 20 minute period. The phone was an NSI phone. And each time the line was answered, a kid made some crude comment and hung up. I personally talked to this kid twice. First time, after saying "911, where is your emergency?" he answered, "Deez nutz!" and hung up. The second time he made some comment about my mama and her cunt, and of course, hung up. Unfortunately we were never able to get phase 2 location data so there was no way to do anything about it. Instead, this kid tied up lines that should have been available for actual emergency calls. Granted, it's unlikely that this incident alone would have caused a significant delay in response to a true emergency, it is still a quite common problem, that could be nearly eliminated if NSI phones weren't allowed to dial 911.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[Anonymous Coward]

She didn't call 911, she used an app and put a note in the delivery instructions to send the fuzz.

Re:Trolling Douchebags

[mgcarley]

If you actually read the article, the 30% number is an anomaly in one county. The vast majority 90% and above, are non-emergency use (Burger King is closed and I'm hungry) or malicious pranks. The simplest solution is to require all phones to be registered via drivers license or state ID and billed a nominal fee $1/month on a credit card to be active for 911.

This would be very inconvenient for the millions of foreigners who visit the US every year. As someone who is resident in a country where this *is* required (India), not only is it a bad, bad idea, but it also provides (yet) another avenue for fraud (unscrupulous dealers giving out cc information or double/triple/quadruple billing the card for the $1 for profit and/or for registering the phone to a buddy who then uses it maliciously and then the innocent foreigner gets stopped and detained at the border on his way out. It might sound like an extreme situation but this sort of thing does happen.

The theoretical scenario of someone being kidnapped and getting access to a phone with no sim chip is just bleeding heart BS. Whose phone is the kidnapee must likely to get? Their own? That had a sim in it right? Any kidnapper with half a brain smashes that thing first off as it has GPS and you can never tell if it is truly turned off. The kidnapper's phone? Shit that thing is sure to work, the kidnapper is making calls to his boss/ransom calls etc. He might turn it off, but it will be functional, though probably behind a password, which can still be bypassed for a 911 call.

When I'm in the US, I drive around a lot and as a result I find myself often in areas where, if I required assistance, I would like for my spare phone with no SIM (which I do keep in the glovebox) to be working if I needed to get ahold of 911 and for some reason the battery in my other phone was dead (not common, but it could happen). Case in point, in January I was driving through Arkansas on my way to Memphis in the very early hours of the morning and it just so happened that there was a blizzard, which meant that 1. The roads were perilous because no plowing had been done yet and 2. I had to be super careful... if I had been involved in an accident, that phone might have made a difference.

Right now, real people are dying because some little shits are abusing the system and tying up 911 and emergency response. As an alternative to the above, provide 911 with the unique IMEI id number of the phone, and if the emergency is a prank or for repeated non-emergency calls, BRICK THE DAMN PHONE by remote.

This much *might* be a good idea - or maybe not bricking it, but at least rate-limiting it. Alternatively, IVR prompts as mentioned above.

They probably got tired of calls from Demetri

[NotDrWho]

Hello, 9-11? This is Demetri again. The aliens are back, and this time they brought Brett Favre with them!

Re:They probably got tired of calls from Demetri

[gstoddart]

But, Brett Favre is an alien. Everybody knows that. ;-)

Re:They probably got tired of calls from Demetri

[Anonymous Coward]

[whispers into watch] We've got one that can see

Re:They probably got tired of calls from Demetri

[Anonymous Coward]

[whispers into watch] We've got one that can see

I'm all out of bubble gum.

we might as well

[rossdee]

just toss old cell phones in the trash then
thats probably bad for the environment

Another gift to the corporate oligarchy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another government gift to the corporate oligarchy. Now if you want access to 911 you'll have to pay Big Communications for it.

Re:Another gift to the corporate oligarchy

[jbolden]

/. is so paranoid when it comes to companies. The cost of processing 911 calls isn't that much and the local 911 centers are good customers, heck these fraudulent calls might well be net profitable for the telcos. Where the costs are incurred is the 911 centers processing the calls and then even worse police and fire departments in responding to them. This policy change is the federal government helping out local government. It has nothing to do with "corporate oligarchy".

Re:Another gift to the corporate oligarchy

[Anonymous Coward]

Lemme guess, you just blew in from 8chan and are angry because you won't be able to send SWAT teams to Anita Sarkeesian on a daily basis. Boo fucking hoo. Go find someone else to bully and stop wasting government and taxpayer resources on your stupid anti-feminist crusade.

Re:Another gift to the corporate oligarchy

[EvilSS]

I doubt the phone companies care much either way. It's the 911 call centers that are asking for this, because so many of the calls coming from these devices are not legit. These calls tie up operators and waste resources that would be better used taking calls from callers who actually have emergencies.

Re:Another gift to the corporate oligarchy

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony of this comment of course being that Anita has never been SWATed, but plenty of the Gamer Gate folks have.

Re:Another gift to the corporate oligarchy

[Anonymous Coward]

And, conveniently, none of the statistics about what percent of calls or response come from these devices. Does this represent 90% of their fraudulent use ... or 1%? Also, if you RTFP you will note that impact on telecom is PROMINENT in the discussion (too much drain on their resources to support old infrastructure that a lot of aging phones use) where as impact on use in abused women's shelters is ABSENT.

Maybe you should read before you jump to the defense of the corporate oligarchy.

Re:Another gift to the corporate oligarchy

[jbolden]

Supporting old (non standard) phones is a serious cost, so good point.

Re:Another gift to the corporate oligarchy

[Anonymous Coward]

I work at a PSAP and I see citizens waste our resources every day, to the detriment of their own lives.

I assure you grasshopper, there is no tin foil hat conspiracy to make you pay so we can get rich. We work with a tiny budget, and minimal resources, we work hard to keep citizens alive, and the only time we make the news is when we make a mistake. Nobody every thanks us.

In fact, all I hear are citizens saying big government is bad, taxes are bad, yada yada. Everybody cheats on their taxes, because nobody wants to pay them. And with that tiny budget we're given, we have to divert considerable resources to processing these bogus calls, while real citizens like you are dying.

Your comment implies that you demand we give everyone 911 access for free, and also process bogus calls all day, and do it all with a budget that you refuse to increase because that would mean "big government" and painful "tax increases". So explain to me exactly how we are supposed to achieve this impossible task with money that you, the citizen, refuse to give us?

What, no answer? Sigh. Oh well, back to work. I have some more ungrateful citizens to save the lives of.

Re:Another gift to the corporate oligarchy

[sims 2]

by non standard you mean the old analog cellphone network they shut off back in 2008? you can't even call 911 on a analog cellphone today because the network doesn't exist anymore.

last i heard they were already planning to shut off both 1x and evdo service around 2020 and they dont even have anything to replace the voice capacity yet no basic phone verizon sells today supports anything above evdo rev a (and last i checked they only had one basic phone that did evdo rev a!)

Re:Another gift to the corporate oligarchy

[jbolden]

I don't think they are going to make 2020 at this point. The replacement for 1xRTT voice is going to be VoLTE. I have it on my phone. I have it disabled on my phone since the 1xRTT network is go good, the data network is much more spotty and I care about voice reliability. But that will resolve itself over the next decade. It wouldn't shock me if on my next phone I'm using VoLTE all the time for voice.

Even if they were going to make the switch by 2020 (again I'm thinking 2025 or something is more likely) the cost of VoLTE phones in 2020 would be likely be $50 or lower. Giving out 100m of these for free would likely be cheaper than keeping the old network up and running.

Re:Another gift to the corporate oligarchy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, abused women's shelters. Not abused men's shelters though, there aren't any for them, despite them being recipients of abuse almost as often...

Are we primarily talking about 'swatting' attacks?

[Applehu Akbar]

Prank calls to emergency services have been going on long before 911, but I'm sure that burner phones, which seems to be the category of device we're dealing with here, would be ideal for calling in those false emergency reports designed to send SWAT teams to the home of someone you don't like.

The other 70%

[snsh]

What's the breakdown of the other 70%? Are they mostly prank calls?

Re: The other 70%

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSI phones are often distributed to mentally challenged individuals or medical shut-ins, who are largely unattended during the day, as a way for them to call help in an emergency. These folks--many infirm/all lonely--learned that the phone would dial 911, and the operator-unlike most people they encountered (if they encountered people at all) would speak with them. Many such calls were repeated dozens of times (or more) each day.
And the rest were just dopes with nothing better to do.

Re: The other 70%

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSI phones are often distributed to mentally challenged individuals or medical shut-ins, who are largely unattended during the day, as a way for them to call help in an emergency. These folks--many infirm/all lonely--learned that the phone would dial 911, and the operator-unlike most people they encountered (if they encountered people at all) would speak with them. Many such calls were repeated dozens of times (or more) each day.

That is terribly sad. Not sad pathetic (though there is admittedly an element of that) but sad as in tragic, depressing, and upsetting. Welcome to your future ... most of us will probably end up being medically shut in before we die, probably later in life, and by the sound of it, so terribly lonely and in desperate need of human contact that we'll dial 911 just to hear another human voice.

Except that option will be taken away, so guess what, while your kids are out making their careers and taking for granted their in your will, you will (in all statistical probability) be slowly wasting away, completely isolated, bereft and alone.

Maybe some of us will be lucky enough to be swatted and get shot in bed, to end the misery just a little earlier.

Re: The other 70%

[Flavianoep]

The NSI phones are often distributed to mentally challenged individuals or medical shut-ins, who are largely unattended during the day, as a way for them to call help in an emergency. These folks--many infirm/all lonely--learned that the phone would dial 911, and the operator-unlike most people they encountered (if they encountered people at all) would speak with them. Many such calls were repeated dozens of times (or more) each day. And the rest were just dopes with nothing better to do.

Isn't in the US a number you can call when you feel depressed, something like the Lifeline I've just found about on Google? It would be more useful if NSI phones could make that kind of calls, too.

Re: The other 70%

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this AC really Louis CK?

Re:The other 70%

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people give old phones to kids to play with; I imagine that a fair chunk of these are from toddlers who are just pushing buttons.

Re: The other 70%

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, why do NSI phones need to be able to do that?

Networks can offer sims with arbitrary dial locks able to dial any set of numbers or data providers (APNs) that they configure.

The primary reason NSI emergency dialing was included in GSM was so that you could still call emergency dispatch when your simcard/holder was damaged or you were on a network with which you didn't have roaming services. The latter case can be handled by accepting foreign SIMs, and the prior case is fairly rare today with better designed simcard holders.

The use case the GP describes can be easily handled by a mental health support organisation issuing single service SIMs to those people, similar to the single service SIMs my company uses for monitoring gas and water networks. You can take those SIMs out of our modems and put them in your phone, but the only thing you can do with them is connect to a non-internet APN over UMTS, so it's not useful. You can lock the set of dialable numbers in the same way as APN locking, both the SIM and the network via SIN filtering are capable.

Obvious point of comparison?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

So, for NSI phones, the figures are reportedly 70% fraudulent, 30% legit.

But what am I supposed to compare that to? What are the numbers for wired phones? Cellphones on contracts? Prepaid cell phones?

This seems like pretty important information if one hopes to make a decision. Nobody wants bogus 911 calls cluttering up the system; but is 70% fraud similar? Modestly worse? Terrible?

Also, if we deem 911 access to be a social good(which is why NSI 911 calls work at all, and seems pretty reasonable), why not split the difference and allow someone to 'register' an NSI phone(having their particulars on file with 911 dispatch is likely to discourage spurious use and potentially be useful for locating them in an emergency if they are unable to provide clarification themselves thanks to injury or exigent circumstance) without signing up for a paid calling plan? So long as it is 911 only, it's still no competition for actual calling plans; but it's less draconian than just killing NSI 911 entirely.

Re:Obvious point of comparison?

[EvilSS]

I would imagine they are much lower, since all those other devices are traceable back to an account holder. Even on prepaids you need to jump through some hoops to get a true "burner" phone that can't be traced back to you.

Re:Obvious point of comparison?

[Anonymous Coward]

why not split the difference and allow someone to 'register' an NSI phone(having their particulars on file with 911 dispatch is likely to discourage spurious use and potentially be useful for locating them in an emergency if they are unable to provide clarification themselves thanks to injury or exigent circumstance) without signing up for a paid calling plan? So long as it is 911 only, it's still no competition for actual calling plans; but it's less draconian than just killing NSI 911 entirely.

Why not submit your comments to the FCC during the advertised public comment period?

Your solution is actually not technically impossible. The systems already have the capability to globally block a stolen phone by querying an IMSI database that all carriers have access to. Such a database could be extended to handle whitelisting or blacklisting of IMSIs based upon abuse of the emergency call systems of various countries.

Re:Obvious point of comparison?

[flonker]

In California, for example, as many as 45 percent of the more than 8 million cell phone calls to 911 each year are for non-emergencies, officials said; in Sacramento, it could be as high as 80 percent. Those calls block the lines for callers who really need urgent help

Source

But national statistics say otherwise. One recent survey reported that 25 percent of all 911 calls are pranks, creating a dilemma for emergency agencies. And in 2003, another national study found that 70 percent of all cell phone calls to 911 are dialed inadvertently.

Source

Estimates suggest 20% of 911 calls are non-emergencies

Source

So, we've got 45%, 80%, 70% or 20% non-emergencies; and 25% fraudulent. Somehow, I don't have a lot of faith in these numbers.

Re:Obvious point of comparison?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I strongly suspect that you are right, your reasoning is certainly sound; but I'd assume that if they have a percentage for NSI phones, they should have percentages for other categories, and it's only fair to take action based on actual data, when you can.

Re:Obvious point of comparison?

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-emergency call =/= Prank call.

Re:Obvious point of comparison?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would imagine they are much lower, since all those other devices are traceable back to an account holder. Even on prepaids you need to jump through some hoops to get a true "burner" phone that can't be traced back to you.

That's very logically reasoned, but in doing cost benefit analysis, an ounce of data is more effective than a pound of imagination, however logical. Some problems that might arise:

1. Even unregistered, a phone still may be traceable. They should be able to determine who last registered the phone and trace forward from there.

2. People may not realize that registered phones are traceable.

3. The comparison data should include pay phones which cannot be traced back to the user without surveillance of the phone (e.g. a security camera that pointed at the phone and recorded at the time of the call). How often are pay phones used for fraudulent 911 calls?

4. Other people's phones aren't traceable back to the caller. I.e. if I pick up your phone and dial 911, it will get traced back to you, not me. That may be desirable from a prankster's perspective. As such, they may prefer other people's phones to unregistered phones.

5. They describe 30% as legitimate and mention that one illegitimate use is prank calls to 911 with fake data. From that, people are deriving that 70% of calls are prank calls. However, that doesn't follow. The fraud rate could be, say, 10%, while the other 60% is unnecessary calls. For example, someone calling 911 to complain that the neighbor doesn't keep the bushes cut. That 60% group is unlikely to care whether the call is traced back to them. So they shouldn't prefer to make the calls from unregistered phones.

The last possibility is why people are asking for more data. The summary is rather slanted. If you click into the actual document, Maryland argued that their study showed that 30% of the calls were legitimate and therefore the program should be continued. I.e. the 30% number is suggested as being too many legitimate uses to cancel the program. They weren't saying anything about what the 70% was.

Re:Obvious point of comparison?

[Richard_at_work]

But the numbers you have come up with are not comparable to each other, as they are for different areas and data sets.

25% of calls are pranks, while 70% are dialled inadvertently - an inadvertent dial is not a prank, and a prank is not an inadvertent dial, so these figures are not comparable.

45% of calls in California are for non-emergencies, but that doesn't make them pranks, fraudulent or inadvertent dials. Sacramento is above the average in California for this type of call - but it doesn't mean the 45% figure is poor, as California will certainly have hot spots in higher density population areas.

20% of calls nationally are estimated to be non-emergencies, so that could just mean California is a hot spot with 45%.

So you can't throw the figures out just like that, because you can't compare them in the way you did.

Re:Obvious point of comparison?

[requerdanos]

I hear words like imagine, assume, and suspect. I think the idea is to have the actual numbers for comparison, not to invent some... right?

Re:Obvious point of comparison?

[EvilSS]

I assume they have data for other devices as well, although the FCC proposal doesn't list it. Since the call centers are the ones asking for this change (no the phone companies), it's probably because this category of devices is an outlier for them and the problem they pose is much higher than other call sources. The call centers have no financial interest in the sources of the calls the get. Their financial interests are in resource allocation for incoming calls and costs associated with unnecessary and fraudulent calls. I'm sure you could make a few inquiries and get the numbers from some of the agencies mentioned in the FCC proposal.

Re:Obvious point of comparison?

[jittles]

But the numbers you have come up with are not comparable to each other, as they are for different areas and data sets.

25% of calls are pranks, while 70% are dialled inadvertently - an inadvertent dial is not a prank, and a prank is not an inadvertent dial, so these figures are not comparable.

Of course they are comparable. You only have 100% of calls available to you. If 70% were dialed inadvertently and 25% were dialed as pranks, that would suggest that only 5% were dialed on purpose and NOT a prank.

Re:Obvious point of comparison?

[EvilSS]

Considering that the 911 call centers are calling out this specific category of call, it would suggest that it is a strong outlier compared to the rest of their call volume. That would also mean that they are tracking the numbers you are asking about. Therefore I'm sure if you contact some of the agencies mentioned in the FCC proposal one of them would probably supply the statistics you are asking for.

Re:Obvious point of comparison?

[Gaerek]

I work at a PSAP. I don't have hard data. But based on experience, landlines are generally always a legit call (whether it's an emergency or non-emergency, doesn't really matter). When people call from land lines they usually need help. Pranking 911 from a land line, is very rare, and is such a bad idea because I get the subscriber name and address as soon as the call connects. And because of how the phone system works in the US, the address given MUST be the physical address of the phone.

Activated cell phones have a lower legit rate than landlines. This is mainly because of butt dialing. Most 911 calls are made by activated cell phones. It's rare to get a prank from a cell phone. PSAPs do not get subscriber information on cell phones. We get the number, the tower its pinging off, location coordinates, and an "uncertainty factor" measured in meters. We can, however, request subscriber information from providers in certain circumstances that I won't get into here.

NSI phones have the lowest legit call rate. They have all the problems of a cell phone, plus no way to get subscriber information. People also for some reason think we can't get location information from an NSI phone. This is false. But it adds to peoples perceived anonymity when it comes to this phone. Most prank calls come from these phones. Most "dumb" requests come from these phones (because people who have them can't dial anything but 911, so they call us thinking we can help them with their everyday shit). Although there are legit calls (again, not necessarily emergencies, just legitimate calls) from NSI phones, they are few and far between. It's very rare to get an actual emergency call from one of these phones.

30%

[gurps_npc]

As many as 30% are "legitimate"?

That sounds really bad. But we need the percentage of "legitimate" calls made from regular phones to really know if it is bad or not.

If that comparison number is less than 60%, than they have no real argument. But if say 90% of regular phone calls to 911 are legit, then they have a more reasonable argument.

Re:30%

[Anonymous Coward]

What also matters is how much resources the 60% take.
If they are quick, "Is your refrigerator running" type, it would be a horrible idea to lose the 30% of legitimate calls.

Re:30%

[drew870mitchell]

Yeah, and what does "legitimate" even mean? This is a case where I could easily see the definition getting away from the original intent as this statistic snakes its way out of the bureaucracy and into the public press.

To give an example, three 911 calls that I have made:

* A truck was on fire on the roadside. Highway patrol turned out to be already aware. Does that qualify as illegitimate?
* A bloody beatdown was happening on a street corner. Never followed up but sometimes even that doesn't result in arrests or hospital time. Legitimate?
* A butt dial. Illegitimate for sure but I don't really see NSI having an impact on the buttdial category.

If the other 70% of NSI calls are swattings or other malicious nefarious intent that is an entirely different story from 70% of NSI calls being buttdials or superfluous notifications of real emergencies.

Bad Idea

[EllisWun]

The only time I've ever had to call 9-1-1 it was with an NSI phone. I like the idea of using an NSI phone for 9-1-1 emergencies that I keep a spare phone in the car just in case anything happens.

Just flag the NSI calls

[Anonymous Coward]

Flag the NSI calls. If the 911 dispatcher can tell that a call is coming from a NSI phone, they can apply the appropriate level of skepticism.

It's better than disabling all the phones.

Re:Just flag the NSI calls

[EvilSS]

They already do this.

Re:Just flag the NSI calls

[Gaerek]

I work at a PSAP and we can tell if a phone is NSI or not. The ANI/ALI looks like a cell phone except in place of the regular area code, it shows (911) instead. As a 911 dispatcher, I can't be skeptical. If someone says they think something is happening, I have to take them at their word, even if every red flag is flying. Why? Liability. If my red flags are wrong, and I just hung up on a legit emergency that I thought was fake, at best, I'll have some kind of low level official reprimand, I could lose my job, or worst case I can lose everything because the person who called decides to take me to court (which they could do).

I don't think disabling the phones is the answer, well, it's part of the answer. Require providers to activate phones for 911 only use on request for free. Best of both worlds, and a good compromise. If you want an emergency phone, you can have one. But it prevents all the issues that come with random deactivated phones being able to tie up 911 lines.

Need more info

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like a break down of the break down of the 70% on pranks vs stupidiy calls and a compare on how many regular phones numbers get of valid prank and stupidly calls

People abuse 911 anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, it doesn't matter what the source of these calls is. People will call 911 to ask when the local sports team is playing. Or the weather. These people call from landlines and serviced cell phones. So we're going to discontinue an essential service because of a few douchbags? Should we discontinue 911 in general because stupid people abuse the system? It's stupid.

Re:People abuse 911 anyway

[Malenx]

I'd imagine 911 can charge fines to land lines and service cell phones for wasting their resources on non-emergencies. NSI phones might be harder to squeeze fines out of.

Re:People abuse 911 anyway

[PPH]

I imagine the 911 operators can collect statistics on this. If it is people who genuinely don't have a clue that 911 is not to be used if your McDonalds order is wrong, then these calls will be made as frequently from phones with active accounts. If people have the presence of mind to select an 'anonymous' phone when placing such a call, that goes a long way toward proving intent to disrupt service.

Let's Make this Part of the War on Poverty

[l0ungeb0y]

Can't afford a phone? Then maybe you don't DESERVE to be saved. Enough with the "Lefties" and their entitlements.

/end FOX-News approved fascist teabagger slant

Re:Let's Make this Part of the War on Poverty

[responsibleusername]

Lets take it a step forward, public government funded 911? Thats straight up socialism, what we need is pay to play, tiered rescue services. If you want the fastest service, you pay top dollar and let the market (and undertakers) sort it out.

Re:Let's Make this Part of the War on Poverty

[PPH]

The killer app for Apple Pay.

Re:Let's Make this Part of the War on Poverty

[Anonymous Coward]

Got your DocWagon card on you?

30%? Hahah!

[Anonymous Coward]

And I bet they don't even vote! Or pay taxes! Screw them!

Public Good

[Anonymous Coward]

How can this possibly be in the public's best interest? Even if only 30% of the calls are genuine. Maybe the cell phone companies can start using some of their surveillance technology for good instead of evil. If the 911 call is claiming a break-in/home invasion or other SWATTING tactic, disallow the call if it is coming from more than a quarter-mile from the address given. Not an ideal solution but better than removing 911 assistance from all low income citizens.

30% is too good to be true

[Anonymous Coward]

30% legit emergencies is an awesome rate! There are more than 2 categories here (legit emergency and fraud). You also have people calling 911 about non-emergencies (eg dead animals on the road, weather reports, McDonald's not selling Chicken nuggets, etc). Based on the 911 memes, 30% valid call rate seems too good to be true.

Re:30% is too good to be true

[Anonymous Coward]

Submitter here - you're right. The FCC document states

Petitioners noted that they while they were sympathetic to those calling for an outright FCC reversal of current rule, they could not support such a request at this time because there remain a significant number of legitimate 9-1-1 calls from NSI devices. California noted that calls from NSI phones have saved many lives, and Maryland indicated that 30% of calls to 911 from NSI handsets were legitimate in Montgomery County during the one-month period studied in 2008.

So, 30% were legitimate in that study, but the study didn't specify whether or not those 30% were _emergencies_.

Proposal

[Loconut1389]

What if NSI phones when dialing 911 need to listen to a 2 second message indicating they're about to be put in touch with emergency services and to hang up if they do not need emergency services and otherwise to press 1 to continue. It's 1 extra button push and might filter out butt dials and other mistakes.

Re:Proposal

[PRMan]

2 extra seconds is a lot when you're dying.

Re:Proposal

[bobbied]

What if NSI phones when dialing 911 need to listen to a 2 second message indicating they're about to be put in touch with emergency services and to hang up if they do not need emergency services and otherwise to press 1 to continue. It's 1 extra button push and might filter out butt dials and other mistakes.

And small children who are playing with the "old" phone...

Re:Proposal

[ColdWetDog]

"If this is an emergency, hang up and dial 911".

Oh. Wait.

Re:Proposal

[Minwee]

"If you know the name of the felony being committed, press one. To choose from a list of felonies, press two. If you are being murdered or calling from a rotary phone please stay on the line."

Re:Proposal

[david_thornley]

However, the 911 operator can only direct people to your location, and has no magic power to help things over the phone. It will take a few minutes, minimum, for help to arrive (and a lot longer in many situations), and two seconds more or less isn't going to change anything.

Ok we have defined the problem

[jmd]

Now let us put all of the best minds together and develop a solution. Oh wait... this is America. We only respond to money so there will be no solution.

But on another gambit... I'd suggest that all incoming H1-B visa tech workers be required to donate some time to solving this problem. For they claim to be the best and the brightest. (Of which the USA corporations claim they simply cannot do without.)

Legitimate Emergencies

[damn_registrars]

How do they classify calls as Legitimate Emergencies? It is known that plenty of people call 911 for things that are not significant regardless of how they are placing the call. Is 30% lower than the rate for land lines? Of the remaining 70% are they all kids calling to ask the operator if their refrigerator is running or are they mostly people calling because of non-emergency matters that they don't realize don't warrant a 911 call?

Re:Legitimate Emergencies

[ArcadeMan]

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the calls:
- real emergencies
- non-emergencies made by idiots
- prank calls

I wonder....

[bobbied]

How many of the "fraudulent" 70% are from small children who are given an old cell phone to play with.

How many parents don't know that any cell phone which previously had service can make 911 calls? How many of these just get handed to Jr. to shut him up when he's begging to play with Mom's smart phone? How many times does Jr. manage to press the right buttons to dial 911? I'm guessing it's a lot..

The question to be asking is....

[mark-t]

If 30% of the calls to 911 were legitimate emergencies, what percentage of those emergencies would have been reported as promptly if there had been a requirement that a phone used to call 911 only be from a registered phone? If that percentage is not very high, then it's my opinion that they may have to simply factor in such non-emergencies into the "cost of business" as it were.

Of course, if that percentage actually works out to be something quite high, then I don't really see a huge problem with it.

The important statistic is....

[duckintheface]

what percentage of valid mobile 911 calls are made from NIS phones? Strangely, that number does not appear in the federal report. Saying that 30% of NIS calls are valid focuses on the problem. But if 1% (or more) of valid mobile 911 calls come from NIS phones, that is a valuable service that definitely should not be terminated without a plan for cost-free replacement.

Also, the blather about how inexpensive mobile phones are is seriously flawed. I recently dropped my full featured Verizon plan and changed instead to a minimal pre-paid plan. What I discovered is that Verizon plays lots of dirty tricks to cheat poor people of their money. For example, they tell you that you must pay monthly, but what they mean is every 30 days. If you set up auto-pay via credit card based on their web site, you will be ok until there is a month with 31 days. Then they cancel your service and seize the balance in your account, which could be hundreds of dollars. Even if you owe only $5, they take all the money in your account.

Re:The important statistic is....

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, what percentage of bogus 911 calls come from in-service cell phones and land lines? How bad is this problem, relatively speaking?

Easy solution

[ArcadeMan]

Keep 911 for real emergencies.
Add 922 for fake emergencies.

This is the message for 922:
"Thank you for calling the prank emergency line. Your prank will be recorded and the best ones will be added into a 'best of' compilation of the year. Thank you."

Putting an incentive (the "best of" compilation) will push a lot of those pranks to the new number ("Hey man! My prank was chosen! I rule!") and those compilations could be sold as profit to help pay for both 911 and 922 services.

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Or we could invent a telephone analogue to RFC 3514. :p

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

That... that actually might work...

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

But phones have a whitelist of emergency numbers, they won't allow 922

WTF is an "NSI" Phone?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is an "NSI" phone?

A National Standards Institute phone?

Re:WTF is an "NSI" Phone?

[thunderclap]

A Non-Service-Initated phone. Ie a phone that no longer has an active account attached to it. Basically a burner phone or a phone that has an inactive account attached to IEMI number.

some disabled smartphones won't call 911

[Anonymous Coward]

Just an observation:

I just bought a cheap Boost Mobile USA smartphone but I have not activated. I cannot dial 911. The phone does not say "Emergency Calls only." My friend who has an Anroid Tracfone phone can dial 911. The phone is able to communicate to the tower and Boost Mobile's network. Because Boost Mobile knows that my phone isn't registered, Boost Mobile is able to prevent the phone from connecting to the network and calling 911. Incidentally, apps that are supposed to report what cell tower I am connected to show the cell ID to be -1. The same app on a Tracfone shows a normal value like 501.

I call bullshit on the 911-only phones

[nbauman]

I don't believe that you can donate your old cell phones to be used as 911-only phones by victims of domestic violence, etc. It's an urban myth.

I checked it out once because of a 90-year-old neighbor. He had a stroke, and he was lying in the bathroom for 24 hours, unable to call for help, until one of his children came over for their daily check-in.

I tried to find out where in New York City I could get one of those 911-only reconditioned cell phones, that he could carry with him and use if something similar happened again. I researched the Internet, made several calls, and couldn't find one.

But who needs one? Low-income people can get a free Assurance or Safelink phone, that they can use to call 911 and everything else (like doctors and relatives). So why would anybody want a phone that could do nothing but call 911?

I just called another nationwide service (which I am not identifying because I don't want everybody calling them), and the woman answering the phone told me that they really don't provide people with reconditioned 911-only cell phones. They collect the old phones, turn them into Verizon, and Verizon gives them "Help" phones which are cheap cell phones with free minutes on them.

Try it yourself. Call one of those services and ask them whether they can give you a reconditioned phone. They can't.

Think about it. You can buy a low-end wireless phone new for $15 retail (and probably $5 wholesale). In order to "recondition" them, you'd need a technician to check it out, to make sure it's working. People would be using them for life-threatening emergencies, so they have to work reliably. You'd have to repackage and distribute them. It's cheaper for a phone company or any agency to just buy new phones in bulk. But why bother? Why not just let people get a phone directly from Assurance or Safelink?

Re:I call bullshit on the 911-only phones

[feenberg2303]

You are misunderstanding what "911-only" means. Any cell phone that has no arrangement with a cell phone provider can still dial 911 and be connected. There is nothing special about the phone, it is an ordinary, unmodified phone that no one is paying for service on.

Re:I call bullshit on the 911-only phones

[nbauman]

I am referring to the frequent claim, repeated here, that you can donate your used cell phone to an organization that will redistribute it to a battered woman who can't afford a cell phone herself, so that she can use it to only call 911 in an emergency.

First, none of the organizations I contacted had a program like that. They accept old cell phones, but they don't redistribute them. They give out cheap new cell phones, with full service, including 911.

But you don't need an organization for that. Anybody who can't afford a cell phone is likely to meet the very flexible requirements for Assurance or Safelink and get a free phone directly, with full service, including 911. Assurance now has unlimited calling and texting.

Yes, if you're right, you could go to Radio Shack or its successors, and buy a cell phone for $15, and use it to call 911 in an emergency, which might be useful in some scenarios.

But you can't donate your phone to an organization that will give it to a battered woman.

As MANY as 30%?

[tompaulco]

That really stopped me for a second. I mean this is an emergency number, so how can a paltry low number like 30% be used in the same sentence as "as many as". But then I decided to find out what percentage of calls in general are legitimate. The results? 5 to 9% according to one article. 80% according to another article. 45% according to another one. 50% according to another.
So, nobody knows how to measure whether the number of calls to 911 that are legitimate. Therefore, the whole article comes under suspicion.

Everybody knows the REAL number

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody knows the REAL number is 912.

Re:Everybody knows the REAL number

[Minwee]

But what about 0118 999 881 99 9119 725... 3?

My Parents and other old people

[maliqua]

my parents, refuse to own a cell phone, i managed to get them to keep an un-activated one in their car in case of emergencies finally i'd be saddened if this feature was disabled.

Re:Are we primarily talking about 'swatting' attac

[Anonymous Coward]

Prank calls to emergency services have been going on long before 911, but I'm sure that burner phones, which seems to be the category of device we're dealing with here, would be ideal for calling in those false emergency reports designed to send SWAT teams to the home of someone you don't like.

Not really.

Most of the swatting incidents involving spoofing the call so that it appears to be made from the residence from someone who lives there.

When a cell phone calls 911, they get the approximate phone location (at least what tower it is talking to). If I call 911 and I'm 10 miles away from the reported location, hopefully the cops will be a bit more skeptical before they come in with guns blazing.

Who am I kidding, the cops will probably still toss in stun grenades based on no reasonable suspicion at all:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Generally known but incorrect...

[superid]

If you call 911 from a cellphone in southeastern MA, your call is sent to state police headquarters, then it is transferred to the nearest state police barracks, THEN it is transferred to the primary PSAP. So I guess it is more correct to say that you will be connected to the PSAP *eventually*.

  Source, I'm an EMT, my paramedic partner is also a MA state cop.

How did they handle it when payphones were common?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they had a way to deal with anonymous 911 pranks calls from payphones when payphones were everywhere, what has changed?

FCC cannot prevent fraud

[flamer63]

As an experienced person in the 911 industry, there was some fraudulent calls, but the larger volume of non 911 calls came from a cell phone refurbishing company that would dial 911 as a testing procedure and then hang up. Do this hundreds of times a day, and you can see the issue with saturating 911 trunks with test calls opposed to real emergency calls. The ability to call 911 from an uninitialized mobile phone evolved from the same ability with a land line in a building to call 911 without service. The problem is that wireless phones are mobile, and can be difficult to track in a reasonable amount of time. Therefore is ripe for abuse and potential abuse. Some kind of identification would be ideal, but there is also burden placed on some entity to do that for essentially free, or as someone suggested having a low-cost SIM that would only call 911. That still doesn't prevent abuse just ties the caller/TN to an account or transaction paid by a customer. Still plenty of room for fraud if someone was determined to commit it.

Wrong way of looking at things

[dnaumov]

"Yet respondents cited by the FCC show that as may as 30% of 911 calls from NSI phones are for legitimate emergencies"

= As much as 70% of 911 calls from NSI phones are fraudulent.

Re:Wrong way of looking at things

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the proper grammar is "as may as" as written in the summary rather than "as much as" which you wrote. HTH HAND

Increase fines or jail

[CanadianMacFan]

You keep on hearing on how people are abusing the 911 system with stupid calls. Doesn't matter if it with a NSI phone or not. Maybe they should start laying down some hefty fines, community service, or even some jail time (on weekends or when the person isn't working so that they don't lose their job) for the abuses and maybe people will get the idea that 911 is for emergencies. Then you won't have people calling because someone put ketchup on their burger.

Re:Are we primarily talking about 'swatting' attac

[Gaerek]

Coming from someone who works at a LE Comm center and has taken a "SWATing call..." the simplest versions are someone using Skype or similar service to dial into a LE non-emergency number. That's how the one call I took worked. We didn't activate SWAT either, it was apparent when officers were on scene nothing was going on. As other have said, the more sophisticated methods involve ANI/ALI spoofing. Not easy, but not impossible. Haven't seen this method used, but heard about it.

We cannot normally get subscriber information on wireless phones. The information we get is the phone number, the tower it's pinging off of, and sometimes location information gained either by triangulation from nearby cell towers or the phones internal GPS. It works this way whether its an activated phone or an NSI phone. So regardless of which, I can get at least some degree of location information off of ANY wireless phone. (The scene in the movie The Call where they say we can't get location information because it's a prepaid is complete bullshit, fabricated for the sake of the plot).

The real issue is having to use finite resources to respond to fraudulent or illegitimate calls. When you consider most police departments and 911 call centers are short staffed as it is, it makes this an even bigger problem.

NSI phone

[jraff2]

NSI phone obviously need to be shut down. The issue is inexpensive real phones. Cell phones are getting real cheap. Mandate that a emergency-only use phone that has limited usage for emergencies only, so very few real calls will be made. If too many make the user upgrade to a real contract.

Wait, just for a second..

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if 911 is a public taxpayer service/govt service, etc...
why do we have to identify ourselves? If the call is deemed inside the US, isn't that proof enough that its legit.

With out these calls, how do cops and other responders get out of the donut/coffee shops?

They need their exercise too right? Plus it also helps maintain literacy. I mean you have to be literate to fill out all the paperwork right?
And man, whom are we to expect the cell carriers to really give out ANYTHING FOR FREE.

Should i re-align my thought process to accept that my tax dollars really aren't going where they should be?

I mean what kind of society are we living in folks?

thanks

Re:Wait, just for a second..

[Anonymous Coward]

why do we have to identify ourselves?

You obviously haven't been reading about the rapid increase in SWATTING (calling the cops on someone with the intent to harass). You can't get away with that crap if you have to identify yourself.

I mean what kind of society are we living in folks?

A real sick one if US politicians are any example.

SIM card

[Anonymous Coward]

kinda off topic but: I use a Virgin Mobile USA flip phone that doesn't use a SIM card. When I go to Canada, I swap phones, not SIM cards. I know, I'm still living in the late 1990s. lol. I know, I should buy a T-mobile SIM card and put it into my Canadian phone. Maybe I'll port the Virgin Mobile number to a T-Mobile SIM card one of these days. Then I'll need to re-enter the contacts one way or another onto the T-Mobile SIM card.

NSI lower priority

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Why not push NSI to lower priority.
2. Setup a way so 911 can sent kill switch signal to NSI phone and it can only be reactivate if SIM card is put in OR caller filter mobile's unique ID.
This will solve repeat offender using the same phone and restore the functionality if it's sold or transfer to another person.

Why is this rule change being proposed?

[whitroth]

Quick questions:
  1.: what are the profits made by the major telecoms in the last year?
    2. what do the alleged false calls cost to
                a) the providers?
                b) the 911 call centers?
    3. What is the value of the 30+% that are *legitimate* screams for help, and the value of the lives if they can't make those calls?

                  mark

shows what side the author is on

[Anonymous Coward]

"as many as 30% are legit" is exactly the same as "more than 70% are fake". So the headline of one in opposition would just as legitimately be "the overwhelming majority of 911 calls are false!". or we could use terms like "landslide" or "mandate" where a favored candidate wins by a single digit percentage.

If you're gonna defend something with numbers, but the numbers are indefensible when you actually look at them, perhaps you shouldn't be defending that program.

How about we address Do Not Call first?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the FCC solve the issue of fraudulent calls to citizens before whining about fraudulent calls to government?

The other side of the coin

[Roger W Moore]

Easy to say until you or someone you know and love are the person being denied access to 911 because of this rule change.

The question you also need to ask is how many people are dying because of the delays caused by responding to fraudulent emergency calls? I also fail to see how anyone is being 'denied' access to emergency calls: this is a choice they make when they purchase the mobile. If they choose to purchase a communication device without 911 access this is no different from those of us who make the choice not to own a mobile at all. I would hardly say that I have been denied access to 911 simply because I choose not to own a mobile and, if it were true, isn't that my choice to make?

Never in Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for a mobile company in Canada and would always hear rumours that you could make 911 calls from deactivated mobiles. In hindsight this is probably because it may have been true in the united states. Lots of people would purchase a phone but not activate it and tell me that they just wanted it as "an emergency phone". So one day I put this to the test and found that, in Canada at least and with this (very large) carrier, mobile phones DO NOT connect to 911 if not activated. You just get the standard "please cal xxx to activate."

Knowing that thousands of people had a false sense of security I reported it to the carrier but of course they did nothing.

Stats or it didn't happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm calling bullshit bullshit and bullshit.

1) Untraceable cell phones? Didn't know there was such a thing. Oh wait . . . they CAN triangulate, can't they? If it's a problem, it's serial offenders, guaranteed. Aggregate rough triangulation data and when you get hot-spots, kick it to the local PD for a sting. Don't these also have E911 enabled by default for the last many years?

2) Bosses and the public like number of calls. Anyone work in a call center? How about PERCENTAGE OF TIME or it's a useless figure . . . number of calls count:
- Ass-dialing
- Kids-dialing
- Hitting the wrong button
- Hitting the wrong button, and staying on to say you're sorry and it's not an emergency
- Prank calls (what everyone assumes this is)
- Drunk people (I'm assuming the ratio here is the same as every other line)
- Insane/stupid people (I'm assuming the ratio here is the same as every other line)
The fact is, it's a bullshit number.

3) How do these stats stack up against other lines?

4) Misclassified emergencies: do they count people who died as an abandoned/prank call? I'm serious.

a better way for gov't to solve this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the FCC be the registrar for NSI phones.