|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > April 2007 > Porting second (home) phone number to cell phone ?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Porting second (home) phone number to cell phone ?
|
|
|
| I'd like to ditch my landline at home but keep the number. Is there a way
to port that number to an existing VZW cell phone account, while keeping the
existing wireless phone number?
-- Paul
| |
| Kicking Bird 2007-04-05, 3:33 pm |
| "Paul" <paule-nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:131ahqutd36l247
@news.supernews.com...
> I'd like to ditch my landline at home but keep the number. Is there a way
> to port that number to an existing VZW cell phone account, while keeping
> the existing wireless phone number?
>
> -- Paul
>
>
No problem porting a landline to cell- but you'd need another account/phone
to port it to.
| |
|
| The way you describe what you'd like to do, you'd have two phone numbers for
one phone----the landline number you want to keep, and the existing
cellphone number, both of which would ring the cellphone. If that's correct,
strictly speaking, I don't believe it's possible...as the below poster said,
you need a telephone account of some kind for each number.
There may be a creative way to do this, depending on how much money you want
to spend and how many calls you expect to receive on the current cellphone
number, but if the desired result is those two phone numbers on one
cellphone account, and one bill, probably not.
Dean
"Paul" <paule-nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:131ahqutd36l247
@news.supernews.com...
> I'd like to ditch my landline at home but keep the number. Is there a way
> to port that number to an existing VZW cell phone account, while keeping
> the existing wireless phone number?
>
> -- Paul
>
>
| |
| SlobbyDon 2007-04-05, 10:33 pm |
| Kicking Bird wrote:
> "Paul" <paule-nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:131ahqutd36l247
@news.supernews.com...
>
> No problem porting a landline to cell- but you'd need another
> account/phone to port it to.
Preferably, port to another number on a family plan. Otherwise it might
be cheaper to keep the landline and do call-forwarding to the cell.
Another way keeping the landline could save you money is that the
outgoing local calls would be free in most cases.
--
SlobbyDon
| |
|
| Paul wrote:
> I'd like to ditch my landline at home but keep the number. Is there a way
> to port that number to an existing VZW cell phone account, while keeping the
> existing wireless phone number?
You could port your number to a VOIP provider that allows forwarding,
but it won't be free. Wait for a special on SunRocket where it's
$8.50/month for unlimited, on a two-year plan. Maybe someone else knows
of a cheaper VOIP solution that supports porting. Unfortunately,
Voicestick, the least expensive VOIP provider, doesn't do porting of
numbers.
| |
|
| > I'd like to ditch my landline at home but keep the number. Is there a way
> to port that number to an existing VZW cell phone account, while keeping
> the existing wireless phone number?
I emailed Verizon, and this was the response:
"Verizon Wireless does not support the use of having multiple number on one
wireless handset." and "If you wish to port your number to Verizon Wireless
you must activate this number on separate equipment."
-- Paul
| |
| George 2007-04-06, 3:33 pm |
| Paul wrote:
>
> I emailed Verizon, and this was the response:
>
> "Verizon Wireless does not support the use of having multiple number on one
> wireless handset." and "If you wish to port your number to Verizon Wireless
> you must activate this number on separate equipment."
>
> -- Paul
>
>
My buddy did what you are looking for by putting another phone on his
plan and porting his number to it. Most of the time it is turned off and
forwards to his original cell phone.
| |
| Steven J. Sobol 2007-04-06, 3:33 pm |
| In article < G4adneEiVZ0IEovbnZ2d
nUVZ_qCmnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>, George wrote:
> My buddy did what you are looking for by putting another phone on his
> plan and porting his number to it. Most of the time it is turned off and
> forwards to his original cell phone.
If you get a lot of calls to the home phone, it may be cheaper to just
drop the home phone to an inexpensive metered call service and forward
the calls.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
| |
| George 2007-04-06, 3:33 pm |
| Steven J. Sobol wrote:
> In article < G4adneEiVZ0IEovbnZ2d
nUVZ_qCmnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>, George wrote:
>
>
> If you get a lot of calls to the home phone, it may be cheaper to just
> drop the home phone to an inexpensive metered call service and forward
> the calls.
>
I think that would be more expensive since when you forward each call is
counted. He would need the phone service, a calling package and forwarding.
He could add a family plan phone on his account for $10 and not incur
other charges.
| |
|
|
"Paul" <paule-nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:131d0o2hekco493
@news.supernews.com...
>
> I emailed Verizon, and this was the response:
>
> "Verizon Wireless does not support the use of having multiple number on
> one wireless handset." and "If you wish to port your number to Verizon
> Wireless you must activate this number on separate equipment."
>
> -- Paul
>
The good old days are gone.
Back when cellular was at it's infancy, I used to have a phone with quad NAM
and had three seperate numbers in it. My local number and two other cities
that
I traveled to a lot. Then those people in the other cities I was in
wouldn't have to
call me long distance and have charges even if I wasn't in their city, it
would just
be a local call to them and my phone would ring wherever I was.
Now a days we don't worry with free roaming and long distance.
| |
|
| With the Quad NAM, wouldn't you have to manually switch between NAM's? Years
ago, I also had one phone with two active NAM's in it, but nothing was
automatic. Only one NAM could be active at a time, and calls to the inactive
one went straight to VM.
Dean
"Juan" <n7rcm@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:PGxRh.135026$_73.69491@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Paul" <paule-nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:131d0o2hekco493
@news.supernews.com...
>
> The good old days are gone.
>
> Back when cellular was at it's infancy, I used to have a phone with quad
> NAM
> and had three seperate numbers in it. My local number and two other
> cities that
> I traveled to a lot. Then those people in the other cities I was in
> wouldn't have to
> call me long distance and have charges even if I wasn't in their city, it
> would just
> be a local call to them and my phone would ring wherever I was.
>
> Now a days we don't worry with free roaming and long distance.
>
>
>
>
>
| |
|
| If you aren't already on a Family Plan, isn't it more like $20 to convert
from Individual to Family?
IIRC, the most ubiquitous plan is the $39 for 450 minute plan, and the
cheapest Family Plan is something like 700/$59....
Dean
"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:dbednfECU7aaDov
bnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
> Steven J. Sobol wrote:
>
> I think that would be more expensive since when you forward each call is
> counted. He would need the phone service, a calling package and
> forwarding.
>
> He could add a family plan phone on his account for $10 and not incur
> other charges.
| |
| George 2007-04-06, 10:33 pm |
| Juan wrote:
> The good old days are gone.
>
> Back when cellular was at it's infancy, I used to have a phone with quad NAM
> and had three seperate numbers in it. My local number and two other cities
> that
> I traveled to a lot. Then those people in the other cities I was in
> wouldn't have to
> call me long distance and have charges even if I wasn't in their city, it
> would just
> be a local call to them and my phone would ring wherever I was.
>
> Now a days we don't worry with free roaming and long distance.
>
I used to have dual NAM because I was frequently in 2 different markets
where each carrier nailed the others customers when roaming. It wasn't
very convenient because you had to manually switch between the two. I
think the OP was probably looking for more of a "dual line" sort of
operation where each number would be active at the same time.
| |
| Steven J. Sobol 2007-04-06, 10:33 pm |
| In article < dbednfECU7aaDovbnZ2d
nUVZ_rjinZ2d@adelphi
a.com>, George wrote:
> I think that would be more expensive since when you forward each call is
> counted. He would need the phone service, a calling package and forwarding.
AT&T in Ohio gave you 73 calls per month for free. Then you got
charged per call. This was back before I moved (pre-July 2003) and I
believe other US telcos have similar packages.
Metered packages are a lot cheaper than flat-rate packages.
Of course, I was going to argue that often you pay per *minute* for
cellular call forwarding, but that's silly, as it applies to OUTGOING
forwarding, not INCOMING (which is what this would be).
Really, though, it depends on how many calls you make monthly, who
your landline telco is and who your wireless carrier is. You actually
may be right about this particular situation -- for some reason, I'm
having a lot of trouble getting my brain in gear today. :)
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
| |
| Larry 2007-04-06, 10:33 pm |
| "SlobbyDon" < slobby_NIXSPAMdon@ma
il.ru> wrote in news:BTeRh.18705$PL.965
@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> Another way keeping the landline could save you money is that the
> outgoing local calls would be free in most cases.
>
>
$35/month for a landline ISN'T free...(c;
I dumped my landline. My home phone is Skype on a Netgear SPH101 for
$53/YEAR. It has its own Skype In landline number....in Charleston, SC and
London, England. Skype runs on all the computers so you can answer either
the wifi cellphone or any computer in the house...all on the same Skype
account. They all ring at once...very impressive...(c; If I go out, I
carry the little Skype Phone with me and it logs on to any wifi, like at my
friends' houses' wifi so my house phone follows me, too.
www.skype.com
Because having a landline, now, is just STUPID!
Larry
--
| |
| Larry 2007-04-06, 10:33 pm |
| "Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> wrote in news:J8zRh.41$nX4.18@newsfe12.lga:
> IIRC, the most ubiquitous plan is the $39 for 450 minute plan, and the
> cheapest Family Plan is something like 700/$59....
>
>
Wouldn't it be prudent, if he were going to do this to a second cellphone,
to pick the OTHER good carrier in his area? That way, when he's in a
Verizon dead zone, he'd still have cellphone service on the OTHER system
phone with the old house number! Sounds like a good strategy.
700 regional minutes on Alltel is $39, unlimited N/W, m2m, free LD,
voicemail, all the other toys....if Alltel is in his area.
Having two phones on two systems seems a really good idea, especially when
traveling! Someone's gotta have a tower. He's doubling his chances of
having a live phone in his hands.
Larry
--
| |
| Steven J. Sobol 2007-04-06, 10:33 pm |
| In article < Xns990AD3E075358noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>, Larry wrote:
> $35/month for a landline ISN'T free...(c;
You would be paying nowhere near $35/month if you used a metered
calling package. Unless you're forwarding tons of calls, that is, and
then $35 might actually be cheap for you!
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
| |
| Larry 2007-04-06, 10:33 pm |
| "Juan" <n7rcm@pobox.com> wrote in
news:PGxRh.135026$_73.69491@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> The good old days are gone.
>
> Back when cellular was at it's infancy, I used to have a phone with
> quad NAM and had three seperate numbers in it. My local number and
> two other cities that
> I traveled to a lot. Then those people in the other cities I was in
> wouldn't have to
> call me long distance and have charges even if I wasn't in their city,
> it would just
> be a local call to them and my phone would ring wherever I was.
>
> Now a days we don't worry with free roaming and long distance.
>
>
>
Skype is like that, now. I can have up to NINE phone numbers in a
variety of COUNTRIES...(c; I have one Skype In number in Charleston, SC
and another in London, England. Works great.
I'm thinking about a third in Latvia, just to say I have a Latvian phone
number...(c;
Larry
--
| |
|
| Not everyone has metered service available where they live. My landline
cost me over $35.00 a month even if I never made or received a call.
--
Gary
Visit Lucy & Gary and do the jigsaw puzzle at
www.under-1-roof.com
"Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:slrnf1dqsh.7gi.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net...
> In article < Xns990AD3E075358noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>, Larry wrote:
>
>
> You would be paying nowhere near $35/month if you used a metered
> calling package. Unless you're forwarding tons of calls, that is, and
> then $35 might actually be cheap for you!
>
>
> --
> Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl **
> Linux/*BSD/Windows
> Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
>
> It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
| |
| xPosTech 2007-04-06, 10:33 pm |
| On 4/6/2007 7:48 PM, Larry wrote:
> "SlobbyDon" < slobby_NIXSPAMdon@ma
il.ru> wrote in news:BTeRh.18705$PL.965
> @newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>
> $35/month for a landline ISN'T free...(c;
>
> I dumped my landline. My home phone is Skype on a Netgear SPH101 for
> $53/YEAR. It has its own Skype In landline number....in Charleston, SC and
> London, England. Skype runs on all the computers so you can answer either
> the wifi cellphone or any computer in the house...all on the same Skype
> account. They all ring at once...very impressive...(c; If I go out, I
> carry the little Skype Phone with me and it logs on to any wifi, like at my
> friends' houses' wifi so my house phone follows me, too.
>
> www.skype.com
> Because having a landline, now, is just STUPID!
>
> Larry
After hurricane Rita it was eight days until the first responders
allowed us back into Nederland, TX. When I got to the house, I had a
SBC dialtone. I could make and receive calls. I had DSL. Cellphones
worked. It took at least a month before cable based telephones started
working. One friend of mine had just ported his landline to Time Warner
three weeks before Rita hit. He signed a contract. He hopes (and so do
I) another one like Rita doesn't hit.
--
Ted
I wasn't born in Texas but
I got back here as soon as I could
(Don't forget to take out the trash)
If you never try anything new, you'll miss out on many of life's great
disappointments.
| |
|
| It's possible, but it costs $8/mo: You tell Verizon you want to
forward calls from your landline number to your cell phone number
"with no wait".
--Gary
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:27:03 -0400, "Paul"
<paule-nospam@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>I emailed Verizon, and this was the response:
>
>"Verizon Wireless does not support the use of having multiple number on one
>wireless handset." and "If you wish to port your number to Verizon Wireless
>you must activate this number on separate equipment."
>
>-- Paul
>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-04-07, 4:33 am |
| At 07 Apr 2007 00:48:10 +0000 Larry wrote:
> www.skype.com
> Because having a landline, now, is just STUPID!
Until you need to call 911, anyway.
Fire insurance is pretty stupid too... ...until your house burns down.
Plenty of Voip providers are E911 compliant. Why isn't Skype?
| |
| George 2007-04-07, 10:33 am |
| Larry wrote:
> Because having a landline, now, is just STUPID!
>
> Larry
Tell that to my relative. He came home one day before his wife and
suddenly felt ill, dialed 911 and *DIED*. Since he had a landline there
was real 911 service so they knew the location information without him
having to say a word. The paramedics were able to get his heart started
and he is alive today because of 911.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-04-07, 3:33 pm |
| At 07 Apr 2007 09:31:47 -0400 George wrote:
> Tell that to my relative. He came home one day before his wife and
> suddenly felt ill, dialed 911 and *DIED*. Since he had a landline there
> was real 911 service so they knew the location information without him
> having to say a word. The paramedics were able to get his heart started
> and he is alive today because of 911.
>
But to be fair, if he had Skype, he might be dead, but he'd be saving at
least $300/year! ;-)
| |
| Larry 2007-04-07, 10:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in news:ev7ei0$ju9$1
@aioe.org:
> Plenty of Voip providers are E911 compliant. Why isn't Skype?
>
>
Because Skype is in Luxembourgh? That might be one reason. Whos 911 shall
they call?
Call 911 on your cellphone...everyone here has. You don't need TWO 911
phones. Skype is programmed on my phones to call the cops DIRECT on their
LANDLINE number. 911 isn't any more necessary, now, than it was in 1960
before it happened. You can STILL call the cops, directly to their
dispatcher.....assuming you know where you live.
I see Vonage, trying to justify the $25/month before the first phone call,
always bragging about 911 service. So what? It's no big deal, at all.
Larry
--
| |
| xPosTech 2007-04-08, 4:33 am |
| On 4/6/2007 7:48 PM, Larry wrote:
> Because having a landline, now, is just STUPID!
On 4/7/2007 9:52 PM, Larry wrote:
> phones. Skype is programmed on my phones to call the cops DIRECT on their
> LANDLINE number. 911 isn't any more necessary, now, than it was in 1960
> before it happened. You can STILL call the cops, directly to their
> dispatcher.....assuming you know where you live.
>
> Larry
I guess the cops think it's OK to have a landline.
I guess you think I'm stupid for having a landline.
You can think what you want, Larry. You're in good company. I think
that Navas guy thinks I'm stupid, too.
There are times I absolutely *know* I'm stupid.
I'm keeping my landline. If anyone rips out their landline on your
advice, I hope it doesn't come back to haunt'em.
God Bless
--
Ted
I wasn't born in Texas but
I got back here as soon as I could
(Don't forget to take out the trash)
Until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore,
you will not know the terror of being forever lost at sea.
| |
| George 2007-04-08, 7:33 am |
| Larry wrote:
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in news:ev7ei0$ju9$1
> @aioe.org:
>
>
> Because Skype is in Luxembourgh? That might be one reason. Whos 911 shall
> they call?
Agree, its a toy service not really ready for primetime.
>
> Call 911 on your cellphone...everyone here has.
Yes, but you are the first one to remind everyone how unreliable they are...
> You don't need TWO 911
> phones. Skype is programmed on my phones to call the cops DIRECT on their
> LANDLINE number.
Which is totally useless in an emergency. Think having a heart attack or
a little kid watching grandma die because he doesn't know how to say
"this is Jimmy Jones at 567 Main St in Smithtown, Apartment 3b..."
911 isn't any more necessary, now, than it was in 1960
> before it happened. You can STILL call the cops, directly to their
> dispatcher.....assuming you know where you live.
>
> I see Vonage, trying to justify the $25/month before the first phone call,
> always bragging about 911 service. So what? It's no big deal, at all.
>
>
>
> Larry
See above...
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-04-08, 12:33 pm |
| At 08 Apr 2007 02:52:32 +0000 Larry wrote:
>
> Because Skype is in Luxembourgh? That might be one reason. Whos 911
> shall
> they call?
Do you think there's only one 911 dispatch operator in the US?
Every phone company and most Voip providers in the US seem to be able to
route 911 calls among the 50 states, myriad counties, etc. Why not Skype?
Simple- because it costs money to provide 911 service. Money that
wouldn't allow $14/year unlimited calling or $38/year incoming DIDs.
I'm surprised the Feds allow them to offer American numbers without being
E911 compliant, even if they're headquartered in Luxumborg or
Transylvania or wherever.
> Call 911 on your cellphone...everyone here has. You don't need TWO 911
> phones. Skype is programmed on my phones to call the cops DIRECT on
> their
> LANDLINE number. 911 isn't any more necessary, now, than it was in
1960
> before it happened. You can STILL call the cops, directly to their
> dispatcher.....assuming you know where you live.
Not if your young children or your dog (google "dog dials 911" if you
don't belive me!) is the one who dials 911!
> I see Vonage, trying to justify the $25/month before the first phone
> call,
> always bragging about 911 service. So what? It's no big deal, at all.
It's just another reason Skype isn't a landline replacement- it's an
augmentation. Even the el-cheapo Voips (Voicestick, Stanaphone, etc.)
are E911 compliant. Skype is a notable exception...
| |
|
| Larry wrote:
> Call 911 on your cellphone...everyone here has. You don't need TWO 911
> phones. Skype is programmed on my phones to call the cops DIRECT on their
The advantage of a landline is that the address is tied to the phone
number, so you don't have to say anything to the dispatcher to let them
know where you are. This is a big benefit in emergencies where you may
not have the presence of mind to give your address, or it may be a child
or elderly person calling.
With Verizon and Sprint you're better off than with T-Mobile or
Cingular, since the E911 system is more accurate in terms of
positioning, but still not as good as with a landline.
| |
| The Ghost of General Lee 2007-04-08, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 02:52:32 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in news:ev7ei0$ju9$1
>@aioe.org:
>
>
>Because Skype is in Luxembourgh? That might be one reason. Whos 911 shall
>they call?
>
>Call 911 on your cellphone...everyone here has. You don't need TWO 911
>phones. Skype is programmed on my phones to call the cops DIRECT on their
>LANDLINE number. 911 isn't any more necessary, now, than it was in 1960
>before it happened. You can STILL call the cops, directly to their
>dispatcher.....assuming you know where you live.
>
>I see Vonage, trying to justify the $25/month before the first phone call,
>always bragging about 911 service. So what? It's no big deal, at all.
>
Hmm, sounds like we have a Skype apologist here.
How odd...
| |
| Steven J. Sobol 2007-04-08, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 3oni13h6id91rdrhmi5f
2pojmjjeruq3qi@4ax.com>, The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>
> Hmm, sounds like we have a Skype apologist here.
Now, in defense of Larry (how strange that sounds!) - if he's always
somewhere where he knows the emergency phone numbers, he's not going
to need 911. Fact is, however, many people do.
I don't necessarily need 911 at home -- I know Victorville's police
and fire number is 760/241-2911 (notice the last three digits!) - but
even then, I don't know if they'd get my address automatically. I'm
not sure how it works if you call the local emergency number directly,
instead of the 911 PSAP.
Personally, with children in the house, there's no way in hell I'd
want to be without 911...
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
| |
| Steven J. Sobol 2007-04-08, 10:33 pm |
| In article <slrnf1ivcp.mb9.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
> I don't necessarily need 911 at home -- I know Victorville's police
> and fire number is 760/241-2911 (notice the last three digits!) - but
Oops! Police is 241-2911. Fire is 955-5227. Shows how much I remember :D
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
| |
|
| Steven J. Sobol wrote:
> Personally, with children in the house, there's no way in hell I'd
> want to be without 911...
What "they" should let you do, is to register your cell phone's primary
address into a database. If the E911 location system shows the location
as close to the address in the database, then they know where you are
calling from. With VOIP phones you should be able to register a primary
address as well.
A landline is pretty cheap, at least in California, for measured rate
service.
| |
| xPosTech 2007-04-08, 10:33 pm |
| On 4/8/2007 12:37 PM, SMS wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
>
> The advantage of a landline is that the address is tied to the phone
> number, so you don't have to say anything to the dispatcher to let them
> know where you are. This is a big benefit in emergencies where you may
> not have the presence of mind to give your address, or it may be a child
> or elderly person calling.
>
> With Verizon and Sprint you're better off than with T-Mobile or
> Cingular, since the E911 system is more accurate in terms of
> positioning, but still not as good as with a landline.
>
I just checked VZNavigator on my VX8600. It differentiates my front
door, back door, and my shop at the back property line. Not quite as
accurate as my Magellan, but might save a minute or two in an emergency.
On second thought, maybe not. E911 system might only return the
address, which is wrong in the (VZ) database. 'Where am I' returns an
address four houses down from mine. Wonder how that can be corrected?
Obviously the db is using old(very) data. The VZW address lookup
returns not found.
As an afterthought I don't think it's old, just wrong. My house was
built in the late 50's.
--
Ted
I wasn't born in Texas but
I got back here as soon as I could
(Don't forget to take out the trash)
Quondo Omni Flunkus Mortati (When All Else Fails, Play Dead.)
| |
| The Ghost of General Lee 2007-04-08, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 23:41:10 +0000 (UTC), "Steven J. Sobol"
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>In article < 3oni13h6id91rdrhmi5f
2pojmjjeruq3qi@4ax.com>, The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>
>
>Now, in defense of Larry (how strange that sounds!) - if he's always
>somewhere where he knows the emergency phone numbers, he's not going
>to need 911. Fact is, however, many people do.
>
>I don't necessarily need 911 at home -- I know Victorville's police
>and fire number is 760/241-2911 (notice the last three digits!) - but
>even then, I don't know if they'd get my address automatically. I'm
>not sure how it works if you call the local emergency number directly,
>instead of the 911 PSAP.
Been there, done that, with many agencies. If they have CID, they get
that, but no more. The PSAP has the equipment that polls the phone
records for the address (called ALI, or Automatic Location
Identification). They *can* call the PSAP and get the info manually
(of course, it adds quite a bit to response times), but there's no
such animal for cellular E911.
>Personally, with children in the house, there's no way in hell I'd
>want to be without 911...
Nor I. Larry just needed to be called out for his apologist attitude
WRT Skype when he constantly calls people here "apologists" for VZW.
|
|
|
|
|