8
Colorado: to test the 911 service, you must first place a normal call to the 911 center. WTF, they don’t think you might be unable to make normal calls (the very reason you need to test 911)? (puc.colorado.gov)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/technology@beehaw.org
locked 17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

From the linked FAQ:

How can I make a test 9-1-1 call? To make a test 9-1-1 call, you need to first contact the 9-1-1 center that serves your area. The non-emergency numbers for Colorado's 9-1-1 centers are available here(opens in new window). If you're unsure which 9-1-1 center serves your area, call the 911 Program at 303-894-2871, and we'll help you identify the 9-1-1 center for the location you want to test from.

When you call the 9-1-1 center, ask them if it would be okay to make a test 9-1-1 call. If they are particularly busy or are handling a major incident, they may ask you to call back at a later time.

When your phone cannot make normal calls for whatever reason¹, you obviously want to know if 911 calls will at least work. And the idiots design a test procedure that requires normal phone calls to work.

① Typical reasons why you may be unable to make normal calls:

  • You have a GSM phone with no GSM chip, or unsubscribed chip.
  • You are on a prepaid plan and have no credit.

So indeed the telecom industry has a glaring competency problem.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Well, I don't think you need to make that first call from the same phone so it should be fine. How often have you had to test a 911 call with absolutely no other phones available that you can borrow for a moment?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

    First, it’s wrong to assume everyone has multiple phones. Those with multiple phones are also those who least need to test 911.

    But if we can get past that, are you also assuming that the test phone has a phone number? Suppose you call the test center with a friend’s phone (always amusing when a policy imposes having friends, but anyway). The conversation would likely go like this:

    me: I will make a test call from a different phone than the one I am calling from.
    911 center: Okay, what is the phone number of the phone you are testing (so we know which inbound call to disregard)?
    me: The test phone is not subscribed. There is no number.
    911 center: Then we cannot do the test.

    Or do you imagine the 911 center would say: just call us now and we will ignore whatever call we get?

    Of course if a GSM phone has no chip, it also has no number assignment. If the test phone is a VOIP phone, the subscriber may not have a DID. There could be a phony internal number assignment in that case, but the customer does not necessarily know it.

    The next problem is /which/ call center do you call when you are on a voip phone served in a different state than where the call is made from?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

    It's really not that complicated.

    They will answer the 911 call, you say this is just a test to ensure the functionality, thank them and then hang up.

    Worst case you get some person who complains about the test call, and you calmly explain that you called their non-emergency number beforehand to ensure that it would be OK, thank them, and then hang up.

    As for your VOIP location Q: If it has a registered address in another location, you should call that location's local number. Normally you want the correct address registered though, but you could inform them of this directly, as they probably have a database with notes that pop-up based on the calling number.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

    That’s a dicey hack. Maybe you could get away with it but you should know that there are typically fines for placing illegit 911 calls because they get enough false calls to have in place a system that automatically charges whatever the fine is. Was $50 for the 1st offense decades ago IIRC.. likely higher now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    You're constructing an argument that's so specific, you're basically begging to be the victim.

    If you a) have a device that can't make regular calls b) have no way to contact a non-emergency number through a different device to ask if it's okay to make a test call and c) absolutely need to test this right now, then you're about one in a million. Just make that call, answer the "what's your emergency?" question with "No emergency right now, I need to test that my device that can't make regular calls will work in a real emergency. Sorry, I couldn't reach your non-emergency number." and it will be fine.

    It's only an illegit 911 call if you call them for fun or if you test so often it can no longer be considered necessary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    and it will be fine.

    Citation needed that there will be no fine to pay. Why not do a bit of research before making such claims? Quick search for false 911 call should flood your search results with fines, like $316 in Los Angeles.

    South Carolina: misdemeanor. The penalties can include up to six months in jail, a fine of up to $200, or both.

    It’s only an illegit 911 call if you call them for fun or if you test so often it can no longer be considered necessary.

    Citation needed.

    When attackers notice their victim making a distress call, they obviously convince them to back off and say the call was an accident. Emergency dispatchers will send help anyway to ensure coersion is not the case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Well, go ask the non-emergency line if it's okay. That's what is recommended. Looks like you have access to the internet. What keeps you from writing an email to your local police station and just asking what you should do? I can't know where you live. I can only tell you that in my 38 years of life, these things have been solved by actually talking to people or trying things. Certainly not by complaining on the internet to people who can't do anything about it and then not even suggesting a better solution.

    Sorry, but you don't seem like you want a solution. You want something to complain about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Some of us are activists. It is our duty expose incompetence.

    It is nobody's duty to expose anything for the sake of exposing it. It is our duty to expose things for the sake of solving them. If you have a better solution, we're ready to hear it.

    The question is, why would have it covered up?

    I don't see anything being covered up. You have linked an official government website that tells you how to perform the test. Looks like you have found it. Doesn't seem like much of a secret. Where else should they put it?

    Of course the reason I was looking into how to test 911 is because I actually fucking need to test it

    Then do what they tell you to do: contact them beforehand (borrow a phone from a neighbor or send them an email) and ask if they have free capacity for a test call and what you should do if you don't know which 911 call center your VOIP setup will reach.

    you asshole!

    Reported.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    It is nobody’s duty to expose anything for the sake of exposing it.

    Bullshit. Exposure is the 1st step.

    It is our duty to expose things for the sake of solving them.

    Of course. But not necessarily directly. There are many ways to solve a problem. Spotlighting an embarrassment is a precursor. You can also travel to a call center and apply to work for them to improve their system. You do you.

    If you have a better solution, we’re ready to hear it.

    It’s not my problem to solve. Do you also demand that testers fix the bugs they report?

    You’re perversely out of step with how volunteer effort is managed. Volunteers choose for themselves how much effort they contribute. You are not their manager. It’s not for you to drive-by task people and bark out orders. When a bug is reported, it’s public for anyone to solve, if they want. It’s a community. Not a corporation.

    I don’t see anything being covered up.

    You don’t know how threadcrap works. It’s designed to suppress the thesis by creating a distraction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    911 center: Okay, what is the phone number of the phone you are testing (so we know which inbound call to disregard)?

    Your argument stems primarily from that point.

    The purpose of contacting them is not to identify what phone number will be making the call. The purpose of contacting them is to ensure they are not currently in the middle of a mass casualty incident that you don't know about.

    They don't care what number you will be making the call from. They care that they have the time and resources available to take it. If your test call is successful, you will tell them that it was a test call.

    As for your argument about not having a phone to make the initial call, it's 2026, not 1926. You have a phone, it's in your hands right now, and you're using it to read this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent