Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- From: archmage@xxxxxxxxxx (Nate Edel)
- Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:47:49 -0800
Jasper Janssen <jasper@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5 Dec 2007 22:29:44 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've heard that it's the same in the US with 911. Seems only fair,
given that everyone with a phone, landline or otherwise, is charged
extra for 911, even if they've never called it.
Except that the US has, at the very very least, separate phones and
networks for CDMA and GSM. Possibly even 3 of them. That means that
dialing 911 on a given phone needs it to have coverage *of its own
provider*, rather than *any coverage at all*. This is clearly inferior.
For 911, it doesn't need coverage for its provider - just coverage on a band
and technology it supports - a SIM-locked or SIM-less GSM phone can still
call 911, and CDMA phones of any carrier can digital roam to any other
carrier for 911 (otherwise depends on your plan.)
Also, at least until recently, many phones still supported analog (AMPS)
cellular as well as whichever digital system they supported, and 911 could
fall back to that.
But yes, having both CDMA and GSM does make it iffier.
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "If someone asks you if you're a god, you say yes.
posting domain | If someone asks you if you're Sarah Connor, you say no."
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- From: Keith F. Lynch
- Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- References:
- Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- From: Jasper Janssen
- Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- From: Keith F. Lynch
- Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- From: Jasper Janssen
- Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- Prev by Date: Re: Girl Genius, 2007-12-03
- Next by Date: Re: How much is that in ameros?
- Previous by thread: Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- Next by thread: Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|