davidb@pacer.com (David Barts) (03/14/90)
Monday (12 March) an article appeared in the [Seattle Times] about the impact of PBX's on Enhanced 911. I don't have the complete text of the article with me, but it was quite long and rambled a bit so I'll summarize: Basically, a six-year-old child called 911 for a medical emergency (I believe his/her mother was choking). The child was panicked and couldn't remember the address of his/her apartment, which normally wouldn't be a problem because that part of King County has E911 service. But the apartment complex was served by a PBX owned by a company several miles away. The address that came up on the E911 display was that of the PBX company, not the location of the emergency. Fortunately, the 911 dispatcher figured out that the address on the E911 display was not correct, looked up the company's business number, and found the correct address of the apartment. (This time. I could easily imagine a tired or overworked operator sending an ambulance to the address of the PBX owner.) Even then, the complex involved had several buildings and there was some question as to which one had the emergency. Naturally, if the tenants had been served directly by Pacific Northwest Bell instead of the PBX, E911 would have been able to supply the correct address down to the apartment number. The article mentioned that apartment PBX's were becoming increasingly common and this problem would also occur at many businesses (although I'd assume there would be less chance of a frightened, confused child making a 911 call from an office). From what I remember of previous discussions in this group, I get the impression that fixing E911 to handle this problem would be difficult. (Also mentioned was that not all of King County has E911 service yet.) David Barts Pacer Corporation davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb
Glenn M Cooley <gmc@mvuxr.att.com> (03/15/90)
>Basically, a six-year-old child called 911 for a medical emergency (I >believe his/her mother was choking). The child was panicked and >couldn't remember the address of his/her apartment. I agree that it certainly is better to spend millions of my hard-earned tax dollars for the high-tech solution to this scenario than for the child's parents to tape their address on the back of the phone :-) (BTW could you people help get the government to install under pavement heaters so that I don't have to buy snow tires.)
Steve Swingler <SWINGLERS@baylor.ccis.baylor.edu> (03/16/90)
Enhanced 911 *CAN* be implemented from many large PBXs. It
simply requires the use of ANI trunks and an accurate database. It
has been done by several different groups...the one that comes to mind
is the City of Seattle. They use several NT SL-1 switches, and they
all provide accurate E911 data to the E911 Operator.
The problem with the previously mentioned apartment complexes is
the lack of pressure on the owners of the places to spend the money to
fully implement E911, just in case it is ever needed.
Steve Swingler
Center for Computing and Information Systems
Baylor University<wilson@ccop1.ocpt.ccur.com> (03/20/90)
In article <5246@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gmc@mvuxr.att.com (Glenn M Cooley) writes: > I agree that it certainly is better to spend millions of my > hard-earned tax dollars for the high-tech solution to this scenario > than for the child's parents to tape their address on the back of the > phone :-) I like the humor but E911 has real advantages and potential for cost savings in dispatcher costs through manpower reductions. Usually, E911 is integrated into a computer aided dispatch system at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). When a dispatcher answers the call, the address and phone number are automatically run against the computer system and displays all the information known about the address. This includes what fire company, first aid squad and police patrol car should be dispatched to the address and any known hazards on scene (dangerous chemicals, etc.) The dispatcher, once she determines the nature of the problem (Police, Fire, Medical) merely has hit the corresponding button to dispatch the appropriate agency automatically whether by phone, radio or computer depending on the system. This also allows the computer to log the incident and response, freeing the dispatcher to handle the next call, hence, fewer dispatchers are required then with a manual look-up process. However, this cost reduction can only be acheived by consolidating dispatch, i.e. one county PSAP instead of twenty-seven township ones. Here politics can get in the way. E911 allows the dispatcher to send help quicker and with less chance of data entry error. A human is still needed in the loop to filter out false calls and occasional errors such as the PBX one. The magazine of choice for people interested in this topic is the "APCO Communicator" published by the Associated Public Safety Communications Officers, Inc. of which I'm a member. 73 Gary Wilson, WB2BOO Deputy Communications Coordinator (Volunteer) Office of Emergency Management Mercer County, New Jersey PS The address and phone number should STILL be taped to the phone ! :-}
cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer) (03/21/90)
In article <5246@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gmc@mvuxr.att.com (Glenn M Cooley) writes: > >Basically, a six-year-old child called 911 for a medical emergency (I > >believe his/her mother was choking). The child was panicked and > >couldn't remember the address of his/her apartment. > I agree that it certainly is better to spend millions of my > hard-earned tax dollars for the high-tech solution to this scenario > than for the child's parents to tape their address on the back of the > phone :-) (BTW could you people help get the government to install > under pavement heaters so that I don't have to buy snow tires.) But that's not the only scenario where 911 ANI is extremely useful. 1. A person manages to dial 911, and loses consciousness (or is interrupted by a blunt object) part way through the call. 2. A person hears a burglar in the next room, dials 911, and is afraid to speak loud enough to be clearly heard. 3. A person who isn't sure of the address of where they are because they were taken there against their will, or were too loaded to know where they are. 4. The case alluded to above, involving a panicked or small child, though, is probably a common one, and very worthwhile. Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer No matter what other nations may say about the United States, immigration is still the sincerest form of flattery. Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
news@accuvax.nwu.edu (USENET News System) (03/21/90)
In article <5231@accuvax.nwu.edu> Volume 10, Issue 177, Message 5 of 10 Steve Swingler writes: > Enhanced 911 *CAN* be implemented from many large PBXs. It >simply requires the use of ANI trunks and an accurate database. It >has been done by several different groups...the one that comes to mind >is the City of Seattle. They use several NT SL-1 switches, and they >all provide accurate E911 data to the E911 Operator. > The problem with the previously mentioned apartment complexes is >the lack of pressure on the owners of the places to spend the money to >fully implement E911, just in case it is ever needed. Steve in correct in purely technical terms. Many PBX's have AIOD (Automatic Idenification of Outward Dialing) capability. The reason it is seldom used is refusal of the local phone companies to offer the service. Why? It lets the PBX vendor compete with Centrex. The phone companies boast about the billing info they can provide on Centrex stations, and use it as a marketing tool. They then refuse to offer AIOD to prevent equal capability to PBX vendors. The reason AIOD was developed was to let telco installed PBX's do this. I have fought this battle with Ohio Bell and GTE Ohio for over ten years. And now they are using E911 as another reason to buy Centrex. I have no problems with the telco doing this. They should be required to offer AIOD and DID lines tarrifed at reasonable prices as part of their Centrex offering, and not be allowed to set up a marketing advantage by denying these services. (Repeat of same argument applies to telco payphones and COCOT access lines: a level playing field should be required.) Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem")
gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) (03/22/90)
In article <5143@accuvax.nwu.edu>, davidb@pacer.com (David Barts) writes: > Monday (12 March) an article appeared in the [Seattle Times] about the > impact of PBX's on Enhanced 911. > Basically, a six-year-old child called 911 for a medical emergency (I > believe his/her mother was choking). The actual story was that the mother had the flu and felt "short of breath". Presumably she had the kid call 911. So folks, don't wait for an emergency, if you get a splinter in your finger, call 911! After all, they won't charge *you*, and you'll get all that free attention! Heck, it's more fun then watching soap operas. Gordon Letwin [Moderator's Note: Far be it from me to promote the abuse of 911, and in fact I teach that 911 should only be used in dire emergency, when intervention by the police, fire or medical personnel is needed immediatly. But let's not second-guess what 'shortness of breath' means. In Chicago not long ago, a grandmother had a heart attack; her five year old grandson called 911 to report 'gramma is breathing funny'. PT]