Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #34661 > unrolled thread

Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it?

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-23 16:45 +0000
    Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? AL <noemail@none.invalid.com> - 2016-09-23 12:35 -0700
      Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-23 23:47 +0200
        Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-24 00:04 +0000
          Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-24 00:10 +0000
          Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-24 03:49 +0200
      Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-24 00:04 +0000
        Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-23 18:03 -0700
          Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-23 18:09 -0700
          Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-24 01:23 +0000
            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-23 18:58 -0700
              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-23 22:02 -0400
              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-24 02:41 +0000
          Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-24 01:42 +0000
            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-24 04:00 +0200
              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-24 02:41 +0000
                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-24 04:57 +0200
                  Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-24 15:24 +0000
                    Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-25 11:38 -0700
                      Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-09-25 20:13 +0100
                        Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-25 22:44 +0200
                        Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-25 20:39 -0700
                          Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-26 04:00 +0000
                            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-25 21:34 -0700
                              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-26 16:24 +0200
                                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-26 08:43 -0700
                                  Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-09-26 18:17 +0000
                                    Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-28 00:22 +0200
                                      Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Dave Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2016-09-28 14:17 +0100
                                        Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-10-01 16:28 +0200
                                          Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Dave Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2016-10-01 20:56 +0100
                                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-26 11:51 -0400
                                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2016-09-26 10:15 -0600
                                  Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-26 09:48 -0700
                              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-09-26 12:55 -0400
                                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-26 11:12 -0700
                                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-09-26 18:23 +0000
                            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-26 16:27 +0200
                          Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-29 07:38 -0700
                            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2016-09-29 15:16 +0000
                              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-29 09:07 -0700
                      Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-26 00:22 +0000
            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-09-24 02:12 -0400
              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-24 16:15 +0200
                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-24 16:31 +0000
        Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-24 03:58 +0200
          Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-25 10:02 -0700
            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-25 10:31 -0700
              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-26 00:22 +0000
                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-26 04:14 +0200
                  Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-26 02:23 +0000
                    Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-26 16:01 +0200
                      Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-26 08:51 -0700
                        Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-28 00:30 +0200
                      Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2016-09-26 18:19 +0200
                        Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-09-27 04:08 -0400
                          Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2016-09-27 18:35 +0200
                          Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-09-27 17:22 +0000
                            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2016-09-27 20:39 +0200
                            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-09-28 02:40 -0400
                              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-10-01 16:34 +0200
                            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2016-09-29 11:40 +0200
                  Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-25 19:56 -0700
                    Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-26 16:05 +0200
            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-25 20:38 +0200
              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-26 00:22 +0000
            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-26 00:22 +0000
              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-26 04:17 +0200
                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-26 02:35 +0000
                  Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-26 16:07 +0200
            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-26 00:23 +0000
              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-26 04:18 +0200
                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-26 02:38 +0000
                  Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-26 16:12 +0200
                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-09-26 10:23 +0100
                  Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-26 16:13 +0200
                    Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-09-26 15:50 +0100
                      Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-28 00:35 +0200
        Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? AL <noemail@none.invalid.com> - 2016-09-23 20:20 -0700
          Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-23 22:42 -0700
            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? AL <noemail@none.invalid.com> - 2016-09-23 23:49 -0700
              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-24 16:24 +0200
                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2016-09-25 10:52 +0100
                  Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-25 12:13 +0200
                    Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2016-09-25 15:46 +0100
                      Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? AL <noemail@none.invalid.com> - 2016-09-25 10:26 -0700
                      Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-25 20:47 +0200
                      Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-09-25 20:22 -0400
              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-24 16:31 +0000
                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? AL <noemail@none.invalid.com> - 2016-09-24 10:58 -0700
                  Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-24 21:31 +0000
              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-09-24 18:28 -0400
                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 16:53 -0700
                  Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-09-25 01:15 -0400
            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-24 16:19 +0200
            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-24 16:31 +0000
              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-25 11:05 -0700
                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-25 11:23 -0700
                  Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-26 00:23 +0000
                    Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-25 20:46 -0700
                      Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-28 16:30 +0000
                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-26 00:23 +0000
                  Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-25 21:27 -0700
                    Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-28 16:30 +0000
                    Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-28 16:30 +0000
                    Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-28 16:30 +0000
                    Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-28 16:30 +0000
                      Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-28 10:16 -0700
                    Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-28 16:30 +0000
                      Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-28 10:44 -0700
                        Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-28 17:52 +0000
                          Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-09-28 11:25 -0700
                            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-28 20:41 +0000
                  Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2016-09-26 14:21 -0500
                    Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-28 16:30 +0000
            Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-09-24 18:26 -0400
              Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-09-25 02:45 +0200
                Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-09-25 01:20 -0400
          Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Horace Algiers <horace@horacealgiers.com> - 2016-09-24 16:31 +0000
        Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2016-09-25 17:34 +0200
    Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-09-24 11:24 +0200
    Re: Do you turn off "location access" in all the apps that don't need it? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2016-09-24 19:31 +0200

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

#34787

On 2016-09-25 21:13, Andy Burns wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> 
>> My guess(tm) is:
>>   wifi only = Wild guess based on various inaccurate databases,
>>               geodata, IP location, etc.
>>   coarse = GPS only.
>>   fine = AGPS (assisted GPS) using location data from cell site.
> 
> I don't think AGPS is any better resolution than GPS, merely that it can
> get a fix quicker if the almanac is out of date by fetching it as data
> rather than waiting for it as satellite broadcast, or you've travelled a
> considerable distance with GPS disabled.

That is correct.

Knowing the approximate location and time, you can find out what exact
satellites should be in view (from tables), and tune the receivers for
those, instead of trying all.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34805

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 20:13:41 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> My guess(tm) is:
>>   wifi only = Wild guess based on various inaccurate databases,
>>               geodata, IP location, etc.
>>   coarse = GPS only.
>>   fine = AGPS (assisted GPS) using location data from cell site.

>I don't think AGPS is any better resolution than GPS, merely that it can 
>get a fix quicker if the almanac is out of date by fetching it as data 
>rather than waiting for it as satellite broadcast, or you've travelled a 
>considerable distance with GPS disabled.

I beg to differ.  

I think you mean "accuracy" instead of "resolution".  AGPS was
contrived solely to meet the FCC requirements for E911 location
accuracy about 12 years ago.  It's been a point of contention before
the FCC because it's a difficult and expensive problem.  In 2015, the
FCC added indoor accuracy requirements:
<https://www.fcc.gov/public-safety-and-homeland-security/policy-and-licensing-division/911-services/general/location-accuracy-indoor-benchmarks>
In 2017, the basic requirement is:
  "All providers must achieve 50-meter horizontal accuracy or 
  provide dispatchable location for 40 percent of all wireless 
  911 calls. (47 C.F.R. § 20.18(i)(2)(i)(A))"
By 2021, the 50 meter accuracy is expected for 80% of the wireless 911
calls.

Simple GPS cannot meet these specifications, especially in a
reflective environment.  Worse, there's a tradeoff between accuracy
and speed of acquisition.  High Speed GPS:
<http://www.furuno.com/en/gnss/technical/tec_high>
is a huge improvement, offering a dramatic improvement in sensitivity,
but doesn't do anything for accuracy.

One of the solutions to the accuracy is augmented GPS (AGPS).  AGPS
uses data from multiple location sources, such as cell sites to obtain
a more accurate location.  It barely works, especially indoors mostly
because of reflections.  There are other schemes, such as
triangulation between cell towers, TDOA (time difference of arrival),
differential GPS using marine navigation beacons (DGPS), GLONASS, and
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS/EGNOS).  All of these have their
benefits, but I don't think any of them are going to meet future
accuracy requirements.  

There are also some cheats, such as AT&T.  Their solution is to assume
that anyone calling 911 is in a vehicle.  This is a good assumption
based on caller statistics.  In California, when you call 911, you
don't get the local 911 PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point).  You get
the Highway Patrol.  So, AT&T decided to fudge to location to coincide
with highways and roadways, thus improving their "accuracy".  That has
failed miserably when someone called 911 from a baseball field, that
had no address, and where the AGPS kluge located them at the nearest
major roadway, about 1/2 mile away.

One thing that should be recognized is that the position provided to
the 911 PSAP by a common cell or smart phone is NOT the lat-long. It's
the raw satellite delay data as received by a rather crude GPS
receiver.  These delays are then forwarded to the cell site, which
sends them to a service provider on the internet.  The data is then
processed, along with any other location data available, and sent back
to the cellular provider.  The cellular provider then forwards the
actual location to the PSAP.  

Despite its complexity, it's a very fast and efficient system.  You
can see how it works by trying a simple experiment, probably with an
unactivated smartphone.  Put your smartphone into Airport mode, which
turns off the Wi-Fi and Cellular sections.  Make sure the GPS can be
enabled, but also turn it off.  Wait a day, and move the phone 15
miles or more away from where you put it into Airplane mode.  The
question is how quickly can it acquire a usable location.  Run your
favorite OFFLINE mapping program and see what happens.

When I've done it, the initial lock comes fairly rapidly because you
haven't really moved that far away from your original position.
However, since the phone no longer has the benefits of AGPS to get a
better initial location, the time to produce a usable location is much
longer.  With AGPS, my phone takes about 10-20 seconds.  Without AGPS,
it takes about 7 minutes or more.  In some reflective locations (urban
canyons), it can take 15 minutes or more.  If you really want to slow
things down, set the clock to the wrong time.  Without the cellular
time to fix that, it has to wait for the satellite time code from the
GPS satellites, which I think might be sent every 15 mins.

Location accuracy is a messy topic, both technically and politically.
I could write all night on the topic, but not tonite.  Dinner beckons.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34807

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 20:39:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> There are also some cheats, such as AT&T.  Their solution is to assume
> that anyone calling 911 is in a vehicle.  This is a good assumption
> based on caller statistics.  In California, when you call 911, you
> don't get the local 911 PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point).  You get
> the Highway Patrol.  So, AT&T decided to fudge to location to coincide
> with highways and roadways, thus improving their "accuracy".  That has
> failed miserably when someone called 911 from a baseball field, that
> had no address, and where the AGPS kluge located them at the nearest
> major roadway, about 1/2 mile away.

To this point, I never call 911 from home because I get the highway patrol
in Vallejo California, about 75 miles away, which is more than an hours
drive on the highway, without any traffic!

So one of my contacts is listed as "Emergency", and *that* calls the
*local* 911 dispatcher.

I guess I should make that local 911 a "speed dial" similar to "911", maybe
"91" or something like that.

OT: Do any of you have a good speed-dial mechanism so that I can program
the *local* 911 into my cellphone to be called when I call, say, "91"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34809

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 04:00:26 +0000 (UTC), Horace Algiers
<horace@horacealgiers.com> wrote:

>OT: Do any of you have a good speed-dial mechanism so that I can program
>the *local* 911 into my cellphone to be called when I call, say, "91"?

Nope.  I don't use my smartphone for phone calls.  For phone, I have
an ancient LG XV8300 stupid phone.

Incidentally, the big problem is what to do about 911 on my VoIP
phones.  I have the same number in 3 widely spaced geographic
location.  I register the number for one location, but what if I need
to call 911 in one of the others?  No solution, yet.



-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34819

On 2016-09-26 06:34, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 04:00:26 +0000 (UTC), Horace Algiers
> <> wrote:


> Incidentally, the big problem is what to do about 911 on my VoIP
> phones.  

IIRC, VoIp doesn't support emergency calls.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34823

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 16:24:40 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:

>IIRC, VoIp doesn't support emergency calls.

Let me assure you that it does.  However, it's not exactly in any of
the maze of acronyms and protocols used by VoIP.  E911 is a service
provided by the VoIP service provider.  I'm currently on two VoIP
services and I don't know how many private Asterisk switches.  The
service providers all offer E911 service.  The gateways generally do
not.  That's because the VoIP service providers are required by the
FCC to provide E911 service if they are connected to the PSTN (public
switched telephone network):
<https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/voip-and-911-service>
  "The FCC requires that providers of interconnected VoIP 
  telephone services using the Public Switched Telephone 
  Network (PSTN) meet Enhanced 911 (E911) obligations. E911 
  systems automatically provide to emergency service personnel 
  a 911 caller's call back number and, in most cases, location
  information."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1#VoIP_enhanced_911>

E911 service is often not provided directly by the VoIP provider.
Instead, an E911 gateway provider supplies the direct connection, and
charges the smaller VoIP service provider some charge per line,
typically about $0.80/line/month.  The VoIP provider passes on the
cost to the customer, typically at about $1.00/line/month.  For
example:
<http://www.bulk911.com>
VOIP 911 Service Providers
<http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/VOIP+911+Service+Providers>

Coming real soon now will be NG911 (next generation 911), which among
other things, will allow submitting emergency "calls" via VoiP, SIP,
WebRTC, email, SMS text messaging, chat programs, handicap comm
devices, smartphone video, images, carrier pigeon, and smoke signals.
I'm told this will all be a good thing.
<http://www.911.gov/911-issues/standards.html>
<https://youtu.be/V76CawHj_So>  (3:13)

At this time, there are a maze of geolocation schemes designed to
provide location information for VoIP phones.  Mostly, they involve
either programming the users location into the instrument, or using a
GPS inside the phone.  Geolocation protocols are still being hashed
out.  Note that for NG911, altitude and building floor number are of
importance.  If you're the fire department, and you arrive at a
structure fire in a multistory building, it's important to know the
floor number.  

Here's an old example of one way to do it using DHCP:
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based
Location Configuration Information"
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3825>
It's not going to be used, but does give a clue as to how it might
work.


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34834

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 16:24:40 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
> <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:
> 
> >IIRC, VoIp doesn't support emergency calls.
> 
> Let me assure you that it does.  However, it's not exactly in any of
> the maze of acronyms and protocols used by VoIP.  E911 is a service
> provided by the VoIP service provider.

  Please note that Carlos talks about "emergency calls", while you talk
about (E)911. 911 is a US (only? mainly?) thing. Other systems, for
example the European one, are quite different.

[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34873

On 2016-09-26 20:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 16:24:40 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
>> <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:
>>
>>> IIRC, VoIp doesn't support emergency calls.
>>
>> Let me assure you that it does.  However, it's not exactly in any of
>> the maze of acronyms and protocols used by VoIP.  E911 is a service
>> provided by the VoIP service provider.
> 
>   Please note that Carlos talks about "emergency calls", while you talk
> about (E)911. 911 is a US (only? mainly?) thing. Other systems, for
> example the European one, are quite different.
> 
> [...]

Well, it is something I read on the notes from some VoIp providers that
I looked. Maybe things have changed, or they are different in the USA.
One reason could be that VoIp was not considered reliable enough, it did
not pass the testing - as compared to POTS, I suppose.

Somewhat related. You know whatsapp? In the conditions of use it forbids
usage by emergency systems. It could be a way to send photos to the
emergency service to better explain what is happening.

I heard of "emergency apps", though. They send your location to
somewhere. I don't know the details.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34883

In message <228rbd-moa.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
          "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:

>On 2016-09-26 20:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 16:24:40 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
>>> <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:
>>>
>>>> IIRC, VoIp doesn't support emergency calls.
>>>
>>> Let me assure you that it does.  However, it's not exactly in any of
>>> the maze of acronyms and protocols used by VoIP.  E911 is a service
>>> provided by the VoIP service provider.
>> 
>>   Please note that Carlos talks about "emergency calls", while you talk
>> about (E)911. 911 is a US (only? mainly?) thing. Other systems, for
>> example the European one, are quite different.
>> 
>> [...]
>
>Well, it is something I read on the notes from some VoIp providers that
>I looked. Maybe things have changed, or they are different in the USA.
>One reason could be that VoIp was not considered reliable enough, it did
>not pass the testing - as compared to POTS, I suppose.

I suggest you research NG911 (Next Generation 911).

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34975

On 2016-09-28 15:17, Dave Higton wrote:
> In message <228rbd-moa.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
>           "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:
> 
>> On 2016-09-26 20:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 16:24:40 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
>>>> <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> IIRC, VoIp doesn't support emergency calls.
>>>>
>>>> Let me assure you that it does.  However, it's not exactly in any of
>>>> the maze of acronyms and protocols used by VoIP.  E911 is a service
>>>> provided by the VoIP service provider.
>>>
>>>   Please note that Carlos talks about "emergency calls", while you talk
>>> about (E)911. 911 is a US (only? mainly?) thing. Other systems, for
>>> example the European one, are quite different.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Well, it is something I read on the notes from some VoIp providers that
>> I looked. Maybe things have changed, or they are different in the USA.
>> One reason could be that VoIp was not considered reliable enough, it did
>> not pass the testing - as compared to POTS, I suppose.
> 
> I suggest you research NG911 (Next Generation 911).

It would be no use to me. Here it is 112.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34984

In message <opt4cd-jkb.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
          "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:

>On 2016-09-28 15:17, Dave Higton wrote:
>> In message <228rbd-moa.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
>>           "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2016-09-26 20:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 16:24:40 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
>>>>> <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> IIRC, VoIp doesn't support emergency calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me assure you that it does.  However, it's not exactly in any of
>>>>> the maze of acronyms and protocols used by VoIP.  E911 is a service
>>>>> provided by the VoIP service provider.
>>>>
>>>>   Please note that Carlos talks about "emergency calls", while you talk
>>>> about (E)911. 911 is a US (only? mainly?) thing. Other systems, for
>>>> example the European one, are quite different.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Well, it is something I read on the notes from some VoIp providers that
>>> I looked. Maybe things have changed, or they are different in the USA.
>>> One reason could be that VoIp was not considered reliable enough, it did
>>> not pass the testing - as compared to POTS, I suppose.
>> 
>> I suggest you research NG911 (Next Generation 911).
>
>It would be no use to me. Here it is 112.

I meant that researching NG911 would demonstrate clearly to you that
VoIP is considered reliable enough in the USA.

As for 112, you can expect that to follow what the USA does, to a
large extent, some way down the road.

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34825

In article <8mnnbd-igu.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:

> > Incidentally, the big problem is what to do about 911 on my VoIP
> > phones.  
> 
> IIRC, VoIp doesn't support emergency calls.

of course it does.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34826

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:

> IIRC, VoIp doesn't support emergency calls.

It does, but not in the same way as POTS. For VOIP, the number is
assigned to the subscriber's device (or "adapter"), whereas a POTS
number is assigned to the wire itself, without regard to the telephone
devices that may be attached to it. Land lines can't be moved, but VOIP
devices can. Hence Jeff's problem: a 911 call on a VOIP "line" will be
directed to the call center for the location on record with the VOIP
provider, rather than to the one nearest the device's actual physical
location. 

I think all VOIP services support 911 in this fashion, but they may not
support other special numbers. For example, Ooma doesn't know how to
direct a call to 311, the municipal government information number. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34828

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:15:46 -0600, nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill
Massello) wrote:

>I think all VOIP services support 911 in this fashion, but they may not
>support other special numbers. For example, Ooma doesn't know how to
>direct a call to 311, the municipal government information number. 

That's one common problem.  There are others, such as custom CID
(CallerID) numbers, which if misconfigured will produce erronious
location data.  There are other problems, which I don't want to
discuss in public. 

How E911 works for a VoIP service provider:
<http://www.voiceipsolutions.com/products-and-services/telephone-systems/pbx-features/e911-support/>

More:
<http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/e911>

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34829

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 21:34:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote, in passing:

> ... don't use my smartphone for phone calls.  For phone, I have
> an ancient LG XV8300 stupid phone.

That's looking like more and more of a good idea. Smart phones can do such
a heck of a lot all by themselves, with neither a cellular nor a wi-fi
connection, it's almost a shame to hobble their functionality by wasting
their time on mere cellular telephony. Perhaps I too should liberate my
Moto Droid X2 from such telephony, and let one of my older, now retired
VX3300 or VX5300 LG flip-phones take over that drudgery. Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34833

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:55:50 -0400, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 21:34:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote, in passing:
>
>> ... don't use my smartphone for phone calls.  For phone, I have
>> an ancient LG XV8300 stupid phone.
>
>That's looking like more and more of a good idea. Smart phones can do such
>a heck of a lot all by themselves, with neither a cellular nor a wi-fi
>connection, it's almost a shame to hobble their functionality by wasting
>their time on mere cellular telephony. Perhaps I too should liberate my
>Moto Droid X2 from such telephony, and let one of my older, now retired
>VX3300 or VX5300 LG flip-phones take over that drudgery. Cheers, -- tlvp

Out of maybe 30 attempts at convincing friends and associates that
it's a good idea, only one person has done the same thing.  It works,
but has its limitations.  The problem is that the big advantage was
being able to activate a smartphone without a data plan and thus
dramatically reduce monthly charges.  That worked well until about 2
years ago, when providers such as PagePlus finally woke up and allowed
activation of no data smartphones.  Today, it's a somewhat dubious
propositioni considering the low cost for minimal data.
<https://www.pagepluscellular.com/plans/>
At this time, the big advantage is that if I lose, forget, or trash my
phone, it's a simple matter to just grab another CDMA phone out of the
pile (no SIM needed), punch a few buttons (*228), and my account is
now on the new phone.  Worst case is a phone call to PagePlus support.
I can't do that with a smartphone because they require a SIM card,
which would not be available if I lost, forgot, or destroyed my
smartphone.


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34835

tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 21:34:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote, in passing:
> 
> > ... don't use my smartphone for phone calls.  For phone, I have
> > an ancient LG XV8300 stupid phone.
> 
> That's looking like more and more of a good idea. Smart phones can do such
> a heck of a lot all by themselves, with neither a cellular nor a wi-fi
> connection, it's almost a shame to hobble their functionality by wasting
> their time on mere cellular telephony. Perhaps I too should liberate my
> Moto Droid X2 from such telephony, and let one of my older, now retired
> VX3300 or VX5300 LG flip-phones take over that drudgery. Cheers, -- tlvp

  Same here. I use my smartphone for anything *but* making/receiving
phone calls [1]. Calls and texts are done with a 'dumb'/feature phone,
which is small and has a battery that lasts 'forever'. Right too for the
job and all that jazz.

[1] Bit of a fib, because I might use it for cheap international calls
using VOIP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34820

On 2016-09-26 06:00, Horace Algiers wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 20:39:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> To this point, I never call 911 from home because I get the highway patrol
> in Vallejo California, about 75 miles away, which is more than an hours
> drive on the highway, without any traffic!

Here (Spain) when I call the emergency service (112) from my cellular i
get the regional emergency centre. They are responsible to register the
emergency and forward or call the appropriate team to handle it.

So I typically would start "Hello, this is for the city police of
CityName" to save them time and effort.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34923

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 20:39:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>There are also some cheats, such as AT&T.  Their solution is to assume
>that anyone calling 911 is in a vehicle.  This is a good assumption
>based on caller statistics.  In California, when you call 911, you
>don't get the local 911 PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point).  You get
>the Highway Patrol.  So, AT&T decided to fudge to location to coincide
>with highways and roadways, thus improving their "accuracy".  That has
>failed miserably when someone called 911 from a baseball field, that
>had no address, and where the AGPS kluge located them at the nearest
>major roadway, about 1/2 mile away.

This is what happens thanks to such kludges in GPS location:
<http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-city-settlements-20160928-snap-story.html>
  "Witnesses called 911 and told a dispatcher paramedics were 
  needed at the school’s soccer field. However, without an 
  exact address, the dispatcher said he was unable to send 
  help. Eventually an ambulance was dispatched to the wrong 
  address, according to court papers. 
  It ultimately took paramedics nearly 20 minutes to reach 
  the teen, according to the family’s lawsuit."

Note that the witnesses were calling from the soccer field, where a
GPS location from the cell phones should have produced a usable
Lat-Long location.  After all, soccer fields are in the open, where
the GPS has a good view of the sky.  Yet, the dispatcher was
apparently trying to obtain a non-existent physical address from the
callers, instead of using GPS location.  I don't know exactly why, but
my guess(tm) is that past history of using cell phone GPS location by
the department probably produced less than useful results.  After such
incidents, it's really difficult for me to swallow the pitch line that
more accurate E911 and NG911 location information is specifically for
emergency services instead of tracking ones movements.  

Notice that the article continues:
  "Since then, the LAFD has changed its dispatch system to 
  include addresses for all schools within the city of 
  Los Angeles, according to a department spokesman."
which again suggests that the 911 dispatchers consider a callers
physical street address more accurate and more accurate than a GPS
location from a cell phone.  All this confirms what I've suspected for
a long time, that PSAPs (public safety answering points) do not use
GPS cell phone location information.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34924

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 20:39:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>There are also some cheats, such as AT&T.  Their solution is to assume
>that anyone calling 911 is in a vehicle.  This is a good assumption
>based on caller statistics.  In California, when you call 911, you
>don't get the local 911 PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point).  You get
>the Highway Patrol.

WTF? That made sense back in 1985 but now?

-- 
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web