> sales department wrote:
> > What happened to the person is tragic. More importantly it created yet
> > another black eye on our industry by that provider not providing 911
> > services. I would not even be surprised to see some sort of criminal
> > charges against that provider.
> >
> Thank you. It's good to see that my personal thoughts are mirrored by at
> least a few of you that have replied. When a tragedies like this
> continue to happen it looks bad for us all and makes it that much harder
> for us to keep and find new business. This is why it's crucial that even
> the smallest of providers ensure they do 9-1-1 properly.
>
> As a direct result of recent news, I've had to explain to my customers
> how their 9-1-1 works and explain the steps taken that ensure they will
> receive help when they need it. However, as long as other VoIP providers
> keep having problems with emergency calls, I, you, and everyone else
> will have to convince our customers that *we* aren't going to drop the
> ball when it comes to connecting emergency calls.
>
> As far as this particular incident, I've seen reports that the 9-1-1
> call was answered and the caller was told that an ambulance was
> dispatched, although to an old address. The most recent details I've
> seen are at http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/02/crtc-voip.html
>
> My guess is the provider was handling 9-1-1 in-house without properly
> trained call takers. I've heard a few 9-1-1 calls and the first thing in
> every single one of them was confirmation of the current address (a CRTC
> requirement, in fact) which would have prevented this error. In the
> calls I've heard the Ambulance Service remains on the line with the
> caller until paramedics arrive to make sure they can find the residence.
>
> With that, I am not going to reply to this thread any more. It seems my
> posts upset too many readers who do not share my views on highlighting
> failures to underscore the importance of doing things right or educating
> smaller providers about options that they can afford to minimize their
> risk of harming their customers.
>
> Best regards,
> Trevor Peirce
>
Personally, when I advise on or propose a system, I recommend getting
at least one POTS line for fax and 911 if the customer is set on using
a VoIP solution.
Moreover, whenever I turn up or even start servicing an existing
system, I call 911 and tell the operator that I am "the telephone guy"
and that I wanted to confirm that they have the proper name and
address for that number.
I am not taking any chances of having to live with a tragedy that I
could have prevented by a single test phone call (not to mention the
legal ramifications). The operators are ALWAYS very cooperative and I
feel much better.
I make it a point to do this with the customer present, it shows a
high level of "Best Practices". To date out of many many systems,
probably six or seven had incorrect information (on TDM PRIs even!) so
in reality, I may have averted real world life and death situations.
Now that VoIP 911 and VoIP in general is being demanded as the end to
end solution by customers, if I cannot sway them to get a POTS line, I
would have to feel comfortable in a VoIP provider's ability to handle
911 which would include regular testing.
Contrary to Public Enemy, 911 is no joke.
Thanks,
Steve Totaro
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment