Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Carlos E.R." Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.comp.os.windows-11 Subject: Re: emergency number routing Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 21:13:05 +0100 Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: <106mke5$1di32$1@dont-email.me> <10g52v4$3o78s$4@dont-email.me> <10g7bqf$j278$2@dont-email.me> <10gd4jq$2ptu7$4@dont-email.me> <692a1ead@news.ausics.net> <10gdk4p$2vjjf$1@dont-email.me> <10gh5t5$83hq$3@dont-email.me> <10gi8ht$l23v$5@dont-email.me> <10glb7h$1r01u$1@dont-email.me> <10gmg9p$273r2$2@dont-email.me> <10gnfpv$2k61f$1@dont-email.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net 4j8EiEbeQAWIXSnSaersLgK9PT6w1e5aLAHXoLOEy/kPAOZUrI X-Orig-Path: Telcontar.valinor!not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:FWuI8jDpY4LXcLckwywKpsUcqJA= sha256:CQEVCiO+CwoOZkGXyf/jZruGRt+ABVDsb5NSYgDiqvY= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: es-ES, en-CA In-Reply-To: <10gnfpv$2k61f$1@dont-email.me> Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:78201 alt.comp.os.windows-11:27857 On 2025-12-02 20:48, Paul wrote: > On Tue, 12/2/2025 8:41 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-12-02 11:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 02/12/2025 00:17, Nuno Silva wrote: >>>> On 2025-12-01, rbowman wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've had no need to call 911, the equivalent to 999 or whatever the UK >>>>> emergency system uses but that would also be interesting. >>>> >>>> At least for calls over GSM (the point here being that I don't know >>>> whether "wifi calling" will still honor this), I think you're supposed >>>> to be able to just dial 112, no matter where you are. >>>> >>> Oh you can. My point is that where does that indicate you actually are? >>> >>> On landline and VOIP 999 goes to a regional emergency centre. >> >> They get the location from the call ID number. > > When you arrange your comms, the supplier will sometimes > list on their site, whether they have "e911" configured. > For example, my VOIP has that configured. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_911 > > The article tells us, there is an "e112" as well. > > But you don't really know whether it works. Even if you > were to test it today, it might not be working next week. > If we did not regularly test gravity, gravity might > stop working :-/ > > The whole phone network is like that. At my hospital for > example, when they tried to phone me, they were getting > "this number is not in service...". I actually drove down > to the hospital, went to reception, made an outside call > at the reception desk, and I got to verify that > "this number is not in service..." is exactly the symptom. > > It took contacting the hospital ombudsman and complaining > about this, to get it fixed at the hospital end. They > have a separate provider for "number lookup" and something > was broken in that and got fixed. I had to provide them > with three identifiers from my ISP, to push this process > forward (there is more to a phone number than just > a phone number). I worked at the troubleshooting room and the network control room of two telephone companies. At one of them they tried a list of emergency numbers, like 112, every day, to verify they were working. At that time, a telco that would not support 112 calls could not be called a telco, broke the licensing deal. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;