On 10/23/2014 1:47 PM, Phil Kane wrote:
Serves 'em right. That only affected wireless (and cable/VoIP)
9-1-1 access.

You are aware of the numbers we're talking about?

There are roughly 118 million households in the US (as of 2009.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_households
And there are roughly 20% of those without landline service to
their house.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=7521323

So, let's see, 20% of 118 million is 23.6 million people that you're
saying do not deserve 9-1-1 service?

Or am I reading that wrong?

Showed two glaring errors -- the E9-1-1 PSAPs should never have
contracted it out to a single-source third party (or any third
party, at that),

Well, this is just you're typical profit driven outsourcing model.
Admittedly, I would prefer certain aspects of our public safety
were done with the idea of getting it right, rather than cost.

and the public never shudda' dumped their the wired telephones
because they now had a whiz-band transceiver called a cell/smart
phone. Not too smart in my book.

Why should they pay for two services when one of them is tethered
to the house? The other is fully mobile and does a wee bit more than
just make phone calls.

Notice that ham radio was NOT activated to cover the outage. Was
it on purpose? The decision is left to the reader.

Actually, I'd like your answer for that.
How is someone with a cell phone supposed to contact an amateur
radio operator? Even if they knew that was what was required?
Or where would the amateurs be deployed and in what fashion?



--
Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi
http://www.foxsmercantile.com