 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Verizon / February 2005I have a question about being in an area with "no service"
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.  Signaturedr. 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. 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 GSM phones typically display "Emergency Only" which seems like a reasonable way to do this. -Dan Signature======================= Oregon and the Pacific Northwest http://cell.uoregon.edu -- 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If you need specific help, leave your email address & we'll try to contact > you. Worred about leaving your email address..... yup, me too. 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. >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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >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? SignatureTo reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address. 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. Signaturedr. wireMORE (don't accept "less", demand "more") <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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Where does the fault lie? > Evan, we're "close". and I agree with what you said, but... > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Good reply below, but not my question. I always thought "No Service" meant no (usable) signal. Notan > 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 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! > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. Would you spend mega bucks on developing something people will use often or on something they might need once or twice a year? > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Sorry...corporate greed had this bitten years ago and is still chewing on > the fat! Considering what 911 is and what's it's used for cell phone companies should be liable. But are they? > Would you spend mega bucks on developing something people will use often or > on something they might need once or twice a year? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Sorry...corporate greed had this bitten years ago and is still chewing on > > the fat! 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 > This is called paying a premium price for a shitty service. Welcome > to the real world. The Verizon wireless world. Anyone who would [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> contact you. Worred about leaving your email address..... yup, me >> too. 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=6352. Anyone know how to make it work analog again? Just my $0.02 God Bless, -Brain > 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 [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >>> contact you. Worred about leaving your email address..... yup, me >>> too. 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? > 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 [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >> contact you. Worred about leaving your email address..... yup, me > >> too. 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >>>> contact you. Worred about leaving your email address..... yup, me >>>> too. 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. > 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). [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >>>> contact you. Worred about leaving your email address..... yup, me > >>>> too. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.