Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I have a question about being in an area with "no service"

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 8:03:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Imagine this situation: You are carrying a cellular phone, and you need
emergency help. Your circumstance says you have the time for one cause of
action. You look at your phone, and it says "no service" so you pass on
dialing 911 and something "bad" happens. Later, you find out that there
actually was phone service, just not from your carrier, and the message
no-service, didn't mean that you couldn't dial 911, it really meant that you
had "no vendor service" or such.

What would "no service" mean to you? And that something that happened, let
me call it "bad," happened to YOU! Is this an ethics question, or am I
expecting too much out of a phone or carrier. Hypothetically speaking.

--
dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent
Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the dr.

If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to contact
you. Worred about leaving your email address..... yup, me too.

More about : question area service

Anonymous
February 21, 2005 8:03:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma" wrote:
>
> Imagine this situation: You are carrying a cellular phone, and you need
> emergency help. Your circumstance says you have the time for one cause of
> action. You look at your phone, and it says "no service" so you pass on
> dialing 911 and something "bad" happens. Later, you find out that there
> actually was phone service, just not from your carrier, and the message
> no-service, didn't mean that you couldn't dial 911, it really meant that you
> had "no vendor service" or such.
>
> What would "no service" mean to you? And that something that happened, let
> me call it "bad," happened to YOU! Is this an ethics question, or am I
> expecting too much out of a phone or carrier. Hypothetically speaking.

No carrier has the legal responsibility of "service," everywhere.

You've got way too much time on your hands! <g>

Notan
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 8:03:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

GSM phones typically display "Emergency Only" which seems like a reasonable
way to do this.

-Dan

--

=======================
Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
http://cell.uoregon.edu

--
Related resources
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 8:08:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Having read another post about jamming signals. If you really jam a signal,
or just tell people you've jammed a signal, it appears to be against the
law.

Back to my hypothetical question about no service. If a message stating "no
service" was confusing or had contradictory meanings, would that be a
violation of the FCC, as "no service" when there actually was "emergency
service" might be considered interference with emergency calls..... nah.

"dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in message
news:vYdSd.10604$hU7.9877@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> Imagine this situation: You are carrying a cellular phone, and you need
> emergency help. Your circumstance says you have the time for one cause of
> action. You look at your phone, and it says "no service" so you pass on
> dialing 911 and something "bad" happens. Later, you find out that there
> actually was phone service, just not from your carrier, and the message
> no-service, didn't mean that you couldn't dial 911, it really meant that
you
> had "no vendor service" or such.
>
> What would "no service" mean to you? And that something that happened,
let
> me call it "bad," happened to YOU! Is this an ethics question, or am I
> expecting too much out of a phone or carrier. Hypothetically speaking.
>
> --
> dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
> Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent
> Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
> computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the dr.
>
> If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to contact
> you. Worred about leaving your email address..... yup, me too.
>
>
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:47:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:03:23 GMT, "dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma"
<dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote:

>Imagine this situation: You are carrying a cellular phone, and you need
>emergency help. Your circumstance says you have the time for one cause of
>action. You look at your phone, and it says "no service" so you pass on
>dialing 911 and something "bad" happens. Later, you find out that there
>actually was phone service, just not from your carrier, and the message
>no-service, didn't mean that you couldn't dial 911, it really meant that you
>had "no vendor service" or such.
>
>What would "no service" mean to you? And that something that happened, let
>me call it "bad," happened to YOU! Is this an ethics question, or am I
>expecting too much out of a phone or carrier. Hypothetically speaking.

You are expecting too much. Your Verizon phone will only work with
Verizon or other similar networks. If you are in a location that only
has GSM service, your Verizon phone will be a brick. You pay Verizon
for a Service, and at that moment, there was no coverage, hence no
Service.

Let's say your car takes high octane gas, and you're on empty. You
pass by a gas station with a sign saying "NO HIGH OCTANE GAS". You
pass by it and a mile later your car runs out of gas and dies. You
later find out the gas station had gas, just not high octane.

Where does the fault lie?
--
To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:57:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

All carriers have the legal requirement to carry 911 calls, regardless of
service contract, etc. However, that being said, your phone does have to be
compatible with the network in question. Even if your carrier does not have
service, you should lock on any signal, from any carrier, and the phone
would not display no service.




"dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in message
news:vYdSd.10604$hU7.9877@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> Imagine this situation: You are carrying a cellular phone, and you need
> emergency help. Your circumstance says you have the time for one cause of
> action. You look at your phone, and it says "no service" so you pass on
> dialing 911 and something "bad" happens. Later, you find out that there
> actually was phone service, just not from your carrier, and the message
> no-service, didn't mean that you couldn't dial 911, it really meant that
you
> had "no vendor service" or such.
>
> What would "no service" mean to you? And that something that happened,
let
> me call it "bad," happened to YOU! Is this an ethics question, or am I
> expecting too much out of a phone or carrier. Hypothetically speaking.
>
> --
> dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
> Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent
> Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
> computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the dr.
>
> If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to contact
> you. Worred about leaving your email address..... yup, me too.
>
>
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 4:31:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I'd rather pay roaming rates. :)  Spouse had car trouble in WV and the cell
phone calls that resulted were about $10 for a few minutes calls. Yeah, I
threw a fit over the roaming fees "you should know better than to use it
when you are roaming!!!" but once we figured out it was for the day the car
broke down, I happily made up. <g> It's why we got our first cell phones 14
years ago. (Man, it's hard to believe we've had phones that long.)

I think if there is a signal that can be used for emergency use, it should
say 'emergency use only' on the banner.



"dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in message
news:vYdSd.10604$hU7.9877@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> Imagine this situation: You are carrying a cellular phone, and you need
> emergency help. Your circumstance says you have the time for one cause of
> action. You look at your phone, and it says "no service" so you pass on
> dialing 911 and something "bad" happens. Later, you find out that there
> actually was phone service, just not from your carrier, and the message
> no-service, didn't mean that you couldn't dial 911, it really meant that
> you
> had "no vendor service" or such.
>
> What would "no service" mean to you? And that something that happened,
> let
> me call it "bad," happened to YOU! Is this an ethics question, or am I
> expecting too much out of a phone or carrier. Hypothetically speaking.
>
> --
> dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
> Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent
> Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
> computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the dr.
>
> If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to contact
> you. Worred about leaving your email address..... yup, me too.
>
>
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 6:05:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:03:23 GMT, dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma wrote:

> Imagine this situation: You are carrying a cellular phone, and you need
> emergency help. Your circumstance says you have the time for one cause of
> action. You look at your phone, and it says "no service" so you pass on
> dialing 911 and something "bad" happens. Later, you find out that there
> actually was phone service, just not from your carrier, and the message
> no-service, didn't mean that you couldn't dial 911, it really meant that you
> had "no vendor service" or such.

As I understand it, 911 calls will go through if there is any signal present
regardless of what your PRL tells you.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 11:18:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> Imagine this situation: You are carrying a cellular phone, and you need
> emergency help. Your circumstance says you have the time for one cause of
> action. You look at your phone, and it says "no service" so you pass on
> dialing 911 and something "bad" happens. Later, you find out that there
> actually was phone service, just not from your carrier, and the message
> no-service, didn't mean that you couldn't dial 911, it really meant that you
> had "no vendor service" or such.
>
> What would "no service" mean to you? And that something that happened, let
> me call it "bad," happened to YOU! Is this an ethics question, or am I
> expecting too much out of a phone or carrier. Hypothetically speaking.

I have Cingular and my phone displays "SOS Only" when I have signal but
cannot use it for personal use. "SOS Only" even displays the
appropriate signal.

TH
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 12:23:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Evan, we're "close". and I agree with what you said, but...

Assume CDMA, and there technically is service, but with the new plans,
Verizon (due to contract issues) has updated the prl to TELL you there is no
service (thru them). Ahah, but 911 service is still available (maybe).
No Service: verizon has taken the tower out of the prl, but there actually
is service
No Service: there is no service (coverage)
Is this a possible risk... to the person who believes what their phone
says.... no service.

Example:
You've broken down, and your phone says NO SERVICE. So you don't bother
with attempting a 911 call, because "no service" is pretty descriptive.
However, with the plan changes, we all know that in some parts of the
country, areas that were roaming, now show on your phone as no service. But
there actually is service. That being the point of my question.

If nextel says it best: Service, 911-only, No Service
Verizon appears to be saying Service, No Service (although sometimes no
service means you have 911 capability, and sometimes it doesn't). Me, I'm
staying on the plans as of Sunday past: I've got more minutes AND if I want
to roam it is my choice. And if VZW is listening, imagine the little old
lady who doesn't make the 911 call because the phone said "no service"...
ooops,

Good reply below, but not my question.
--
dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
"Evan Platt" <evan@TheObvious.espphotography.com> wrote in message
news:ekak11l14vagrb9ais0v346k286a9bvqti@4ax.com...
<snip>
> You are expecting too much. Your Verizon phone will only work with
> Verizon or other similar networks. If you are in a location that only
> has GSM service, your Verizon phone will be a brick. You pay Verizon
> for a Service, and at that moment, there was no coverage, hence no
> Service.
>
> Let's say your car takes high octane gas, and you're on empty. You
> pass by a gas station with a sign saying "NO HIGH OCTANE GAS". You
> pass by it and a mile later your car runs out of gas and dies. You
> later find out the gas station had gas, just not high octane.
>
> Where does the fault lie?
> --
> To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 12:23:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma" wrote:
>
> Evan, we're "close". and I agree with what you said, but...
>
> Assume CDMA, and there technically is service, but with the new plans,
> Verizon (due to contract issues) has updated the prl to TELL you there is no
> service (thru them). Ahah, but 911 service is still available (maybe).
> No Service: verizon has taken the tower out of the prl, but there actually
> is service
> No Service: there is no service (coverage)
> Is this a possible risk... to the person who believes what their phone
> says.... no service.
>
> Example:
> You've broken down, and your phone says NO SERVICE. So you don't bother
> with attempting a 911 call, because "no service" is pretty descriptive.
> However, with the plan changes, we all know that in some parts of the
> country, areas that were roaming, now show on your phone as no service. But
> there actually is service. That being the point of my question.
>
> If nextel says it best: Service, 911-only, No Service
> Verizon appears to be saying Service, No Service (although sometimes no
> service means you have 911 capability, and sometimes it doesn't). Me, I'm
> staying on the plans as of Sunday past: I've got more minutes AND if I want
> to roam it is my choice. And if VZW is listening, imagine the little old
> lady who doesn't make the 911 call because the phone said "no service"...
> ooops,
>
> Good reply below, but not my question.

I always thought "No Service" meant no (usable) signal.

Notan
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 2:45:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Notan wrote:
> "dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma" wrote:
> I always thought "No Service" meant no (usable) signal.

Your phone may say "no service" in case you have it locked to "HOME
Only", or there is no system in the PRL available and you said "Auto A",
but there is actually a signal on the B band (or vice versa). Or there
may be a system which is marked "blocked" in the PRL. When you dial 911,
the phone goes into a special "emergency" mode looking for any signal it
is capable of using, so after searching around, it may well acquire a
system and complete the 911 call.
February 23, 2005 2:29:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

This is called paying a premium price for a shitty service. Welcome to the
real world. The Verizon wireless world. Anyone who would depend on a cell
phone for ANY kind of emergency weather or not it happened later or not
isn't thinking straight to begin with. Since Verizon wireless can't make any
money off of people dialing 911, they don't care about it...or put any R&D
in to it. There's definitely more money spent on GIN and games then actually
helping the customer's with a better and improved 911 capabilities.
Sorry...corporate greed had this bitten years ago and is still chewing on
the fat!

"dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in message
news:vYdSd.10604$hU7.9877@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> Imagine this situation: You are carrying a cellular phone, and you need
> emergency help. Your circumstance says you have the time for one cause of
> action. You look at your phone, and it says "no service" so you pass on
> dialing 911 and something "bad" happens. Later, you find out that there
> actually was phone service, just not from your carrier, and the message
> no-service, didn't mean that you couldn't dial 911, it really meant that
you
> had "no vendor service" or such.
>
> What would "no service" mean to you? And that something that happened,
let
> me call it "bad," happened to YOU! Is this an ethics question, or am I
> expecting too much out of a phone or carrier. Hypothetically speaking.
>
> --
> dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
> Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent
> Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
> computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the dr.
>
> If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to contact
> you. Worred about leaving your email address..... yup, me too.
>
>
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:29:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Too bad the Federal Government dosen't force the cell companies to allow 911
calls from any compatable phone to use their network and to make the cell
companies provide E911 (a way to locate a cell phone).

Wait - I just remembered - the Government did do this and now the cell
companies are spending money to comply with this. ;-P


In news:111o1lmib8jl9b5@corp.supernews.com,
xman@thedripper.com <xman@thedripper.com> typed:
> This is called paying a premium price for a shitty service. Welcome
> to the real world. The Verizon wireless world. Anyone who would
> depend on a cell phone for ANY kind of emergency weather or not it
> happened later or not isn't thinking straight to begin with. Since
> Verizon wireless can't make any money off of people dialing 911, they
> don't care about it...or put any R&D in to it. There's definitely
> more money spent on GIN and games then actually helping the
> customer's with a better and improved 911 capabilities.
> Sorry...corporate greed had this bitten years ago and is still
> chewing on the fat!
>
> "dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in
> message news:vYdSd.10604$hU7.9877@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> Imagine this situation: You are carrying a cellular phone, and you
>> need emergency help. Your circumstance says you have the time for
>> one cause of action. You look at your phone, and it says "no
>> service" so you pass on dialing 911 and something "bad" happens.
>> Later, you find out that there actually was phone service, just not
>> from your carrier, and the message no-service, didn't mean that you
>> couldn't dial 911, it really meant that you had "no vendor service"
>> or such.
>>
>> What would "no service" mean to you? And that something that
>> happened, let me call it "bad," happened to YOU! Is this an ethics
>> question, or am I expecting too much out of a phone or carrier.
>> Hypothetically speaking.
>>
>> --
>> dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
>> Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent
>> Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
>> computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the dr.
>>
>> If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to
>> contact you. Worred about leaving your email address..... yup, me
>> too.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 8:17:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Would you spend mega bucks on developing something people will use often or
on something they might need once or twice a year?

<xman@thedripper.com> wrote in message
news:111o1lmib8jl9b5@corp.supernews.com...
> This is called paying a premium price for a shitty service. Welcome to the
> real world. The Verizon wireless world. Anyone who would depend on a cell
> phone for ANY kind of emergency weather or not it happened later or not
> isn't thinking straight to begin with. Since Verizon wireless can't make
> any
> money off of people dialing 911, they don't care about it...or put any R&D
> in to it. There's definitely more money spent on GIN and games then
> actually
> helping the customer's with a better and improved 911 capabilities.
> Sorry...corporate greed had this bitten years ago and is still chewing on
> the fat!
>
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 8:43:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

One to add. I have a tri-mode "capable" Samsung SPH-I700 which has analog
built in by design. Verizon decided to 'disable' the analog. I understand
that FCC and others are phasing out analog but there are some areas where I
cannot get a signal; when my wife with the exact same plan and a newer
tri-mode phone can get the analog signal. I understand when the phone has
physical/signal design differences and gets "no signal" but when it could
get it, even for emergencies only, it doesn't.

More on my specific phone and it's analog, or lack thereof, capabilities is
found here: http://pdaphonehome.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=....
Anyone know how to make it work analog again?

Just my $0.02

God Bless,

-Brain


"IMHO IIRC" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:CsUSd.13704$ds.13571@okepread07...
> Too bad the Federal Government dosen't force the cell companies to allow
> 911 calls from any compatable phone to use their network and to make the
> cell companies provide E911 (a way to locate a cell phone).
>
> Wait - I just remembered - the Government did do this and now the cell
> companies are spending money to comply with this. ;-P
>
>
> In news:111o1lmib8jl9b5@corp.supernews.com,
> xman@thedripper.com <xman@thedripper.com> typed:
>> This is called paying a premium price for a shitty service. Welcome
>> to the real world. The Verizon wireless world. Anyone who would
>> depend on a cell phone for ANY kind of emergency weather or not it
>> happened later or not isn't thinking straight to begin with. Since
>> Verizon wireless can't make any money off of people dialing 911, they
>> don't care about it...or put any R&D in to it. There's definitely
>> more money spent on GIN and games then actually helping the
>> customer's with a better and improved 911 capabilities.
>> Sorry...corporate greed had this bitten years ago and is still
>> chewing on the fat!
>>
>> "dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in
>> message news:vYdSd.10604$hU7.9877@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>>> Imagine this situation: You are carrying a cellular phone, and you
>>> need emergency help. Your circumstance says you have the time for
>>> one cause of action. You look at your phone, and it says "no
>>> service" so you pass on dialing 911 and something "bad" happens.
>>> Later, you find out that there actually was phone service, just not
>>> from your carrier, and the message no-service, didn't mean that you
>>> couldn't dial 911, it really meant that you had "no vendor service"
>>> or such.
>>>
>>> What would "no service" mean to you? And that something that
>>> happened, let me call it "bad," happened to YOU! Is this an ethics
>>> question, or am I expecting too much out of a phone or carrier.
>>> Hypothetically speaking.
>>>
>>> --
>>> dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
>>> Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent
>>> Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
>>> computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the dr.
>>>
>>> If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to
>>> contact you. Worred about leaving your email address..... yup, me
>>> too.
>
>
February 26, 2005 12:42:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Yea, I can tell they're spending loads of money on it. They actually
advertise and market the big improvements to that system...o wait, I haven't
seen a damn thing about it. Have you?

"IMHO IIRC" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:CsUSd.13704$ds.13571@okepread07...
> Too bad the Federal Government dosen't force the cell companies to allow
911
> calls from any compatable phone to use their network and to make the cell
> companies provide E911 (a way to locate a cell phone).
>
> Wait - I just remembered - the Government did do this and now the cell
> companies are spending money to comply with this. ;-P
>
>
> In news:111o1lmib8jl9b5@corp.supernews.com,
> xman@thedripper.com <xman@thedripper.com> typed:
> > This is called paying a premium price for a shitty service. Welcome
> > to the real world. The Verizon wireless world. Anyone who would
> > depend on a cell phone for ANY kind of emergency weather or not it
> > happened later or not isn't thinking straight to begin with. Since
> > Verizon wireless can't make any money off of people dialing 911, they
> > don't care about it...or put any R&D in to it. There's definitely
> > more money spent on GIN and games then actually helping the
> > customer's with a better and improved 911 capabilities.
> > Sorry...corporate greed had this bitten years ago and is still
> > chewing on the fat!
> >
> > "dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in
> > message news:vYdSd.10604$hU7.9877@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> >> Imagine this situation: You are carrying a cellular phone, and you
> >> need emergency help. Your circumstance says you have the time for
> >> one cause of action. You look at your phone, and it says "no
> >> service" so you pass on dialing 911 and something "bad" happens.
> >> Later, you find out that there actually was phone service, just not
> >> from your carrier, and the message no-service, didn't mean that you
> >> couldn't dial 911, it really meant that you had "no vendor service"
> >> or such.
> >>
> >> What would "no service" mean to you? And that something that
> >> happened, let me call it "bad," happened to YOU! Is this an ethics
> >> question, or am I expecting too much out of a phone or carrier.
> >> Hypothetically speaking.
> >>
> >> --
> >> dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
> >> Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent
> >> Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
> >> computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the dr.
> >>
> >> If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to
> >> contact you. Worred about leaving your email address..... yup, me
> >> too.
>
>
February 26, 2005 12:42:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Considering what 911 is and what's it's used for cell phone companies should
be liable. But are they?

"cricket" <cricket23@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:SlUSd.4626$Ba3.3188@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Would you spend mega bucks on developing something people will use often
or
> on something they might need once or twice a year?
>
> <xman@thedripper.com> wrote in message
> news:111o1lmib8jl9b5@corp.supernews.com...
> > This is called paying a premium price for a shitty service. Welcome to
the
> > real world. The Verizon wireless world. Anyone who would depend on a
cell
> > phone for ANY kind of emergency weather or not it happened later or not
> > isn't thinking straight to begin with. Since Verizon wireless can't make
> > any
> > money off of people dialing 911, they don't care about it...or put any
R&D
> > in to it. There's definitely more money spent on GIN and games then
> > actually
> > helping the customer's with a better and improved 911 capabilities.
> > Sorry...corporate greed had this bitten years ago and is still chewing
on
> > the fat!
> >
>
>
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 1:04:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

The last thing I read said the cell companies were way ahead of many of the
local 911 services in implementing E911 (a way to locate a cell phone).
Local governments were short of funds to comply but the cell companies were
doing what they had to do to comply.

In news:111vogcqmcb9r97@corp.supernews.com,
xman@thedripper.com <xman@thedripper.com> typed:
> Yea, I can tell they're spending loads of money on it. They actually
> advertise and market the big improvements to that system...o wait, I
> haven't seen a damn thing about it. Have you?
>
> "IMHO IIRC" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:CsUSd.13704$ds.13571@okepread07...
>> Too bad the Federal Government dosen't force the cell companies to
>> allow 911 calls from any compatable phone to use their network and
>> to make the cell companies provide E911 (a way to locate a cell
>> phone).
>>
>> Wait - I just remembered - the Government did do this and now the
>> cell companies are spending money to comply with this. ;-P
>>
>>
>> In news:111o1lmib8jl9b5@corp.supernews.com,
>> xman@thedripper.com <xman@thedripper.com> typed:
>>> This is called paying a premium price for a shitty service. Welcome
>>> to the real world. The Verizon wireless world. Anyone who would
>>> depend on a cell phone for ANY kind of emergency weather or not it
>>> happened later or not isn't thinking straight to begin with. Since
>>> Verizon wireless can't make any money off of people dialing 911,
>>> they don't care about it...or put any R&D in to it. There's
>>> definitely more money spent on GIN and games then actually helping
>>> the customer's with a better and improved 911 capabilities.
>>> Sorry...corporate greed had this bitten years ago and is still
>>> chewing on the fat!
>>>
>>> "dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in
>>> message news:vYdSd.10604$hU7.9877@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>>>> Imagine this situation: You are carrying a cellular phone, and you
>>>> need emergency help. Your circumstance says you have the time for
>>>> one cause of action. You look at your phone, and it says "no
>>>> service" so you pass on dialing 911 and something "bad" happens.
>>>> Later, you find out that there actually was phone service, just not
>>>> from your carrier, and the message no-service, didn't mean that you
>>>> couldn't dial 911, it really meant that you had "no vendor service"
>>>> or such.
>>>>
>>>> What would "no service" mean to you? And that something that
>>>> happened, let me call it "bad," happened to YOU! Is this an ethics
>>>> question, or am I expecting too much out of a phone or carrier.
>>>> Hypothetically speaking.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
>>>> Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent
>>>> Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
>>>> computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the dr.
>>>>
>>>> If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to
>>>> contact you. Worred about leaving your email address..... yup, me
>>>> too.
February 27, 2005 5:13:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Interesting, I watch the news all the time and haven't seen anything of the
sort. I also read of online content and haven't seen anything like that
either. Hell, you can't compare a landline 911 service to an E911 service.
You're static with a landline phone. As with a cell phone and other types of
phone services you are not. Being connected to a PSAP is where you end up.
That's still weary and you still need to probably give your name, what
happened, nature of the call, address, etc....it won't just pop up on their
screen. Although if your phone does have GPS enabled and it's actually
working and your head is being chopped off at that same time they may be
able to find where you placed the call.

"IMHO IIRC" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:9zSTd.16515$ds.15496@okepread07...
> The last thing I read said the cell companies were way ahead of many of
the
> local 911 services in implementing E911 (a way to locate a cell phone).
> Local governments were short of funds to comply but the cell companies
were
> doing what they had to do to comply.
>
> In news:111vogcqmcb9r97@corp.supernews.com,
> xman@thedripper.com <xman@thedripper.com> typed:
> > Yea, I can tell they're spending loads of money on it. They actually
> > advertise and market the big improvements to that system...o wait, I
> > haven't seen a damn thing about it. Have you?
> >
> > "IMHO IIRC" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:CsUSd.13704$ds.13571@okepread07...
> >> Too bad the Federal Government dosen't force the cell companies to
> >> allow 911 calls from any compatable phone to use their network and
> >> to make the cell companies provide E911 (a way to locate a cell
> >> phone).
> >>
> >> Wait - I just remembered - the Government did do this and now the
> >> cell companies are spending money to comply with this. ;-P
> >>
> >>
> >> In news:111o1lmib8jl9b5@corp.supernews.com,
> >> xman@thedripper.com <xman@thedripper.com> typed:
> >>> This is called paying a premium price for a shitty service. Welcome
> >>> to the real world. The Verizon wireless world. Anyone who would
> >>> depend on a cell phone for ANY kind of emergency weather or not it
> >>> happened later or not isn't thinking straight to begin with. Since
> >>> Verizon wireless can't make any money off of people dialing 911,
> >>> they don't care about it...or put any R&D in to it. There's
> >>> definitely more money spent on GIN and games then actually helping
> >>> the customer's with a better and improved 911 capabilities.
> >>> Sorry...corporate greed had this bitten years ago and is still
> >>> chewing on the fat!
> >>>
> >>> "dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma" <dr.wireMORE@VZW-MidWESTma.com> wrote in
> >>> message news:vYdSd.10604$hU7.9877@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> >>>> Imagine this situation: You are carrying a cellular phone, and you
> >>>> need emergency help. Your circumstance says you have the time for
> >>>> one cause of action. You look at your phone, and it says "no
> >>>> service" so you pass on dialing 911 and something "bad" happens.
> >>>> Later, you find out that there actually was phone service, just not
> >>>> from your carrier, and the message no-service, didn't mean that you
> >>>> couldn't dial 911, it really meant that you had "no vendor service"
> >>>> or such.
> >>>>
> >>>> What would "no service" mean to you? And that something that
> >>>> happened, let me call it "bad," happened to YOU! Is this an ethics
> >>>> question, or am I expecting too much out of a phone or carrier.
> >>>> Hypothetically speaking.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> dr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more")
> >>>> Wireless Consultant/Engineer & Midwest VZW Master Agent
> >>>> Data, wi-fi, national access, smartphones, and home
> >>>> computer healthchecks, stop worrying... just ask for the dr.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to
> >>>> contact you. Worred about leaving your email address..... yup, me
> >>>> too.
>
>
!