[Asterisk-Users] Testing UK emergency dialing and LCR.

[Storer, Darren]

Hi Adam,

AG> (BTW, why is it that people used 000, 999, 911, etc for EMERGENCY
AG> calls (every second counts) when we used to dial from rotary dial
AG> phones, where dialling a 0 or 9 takes a long time compared to
AG> dialling a 1....Why didn't we all use 111, or something similar?)

In the UK (c.1935) 111 was rejected because faulty rotary phones could
easily dial that number by accident. Ultimately 999 was chosen because it
wasn't hard to remember and it was easy/cheap to modify coin operated public
phones not to charge for 999 calls.

Regards

Darren
--
Comgate
Telco>Internet<Broadcast

-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-users-admin at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-users-admin at lists.digium.com]On Behalf Of Adam
Goryachev
Sent: 21 June 2004 09:59
To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Testing UK emergency dialing and LCR.


On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 19:27, Storer, Darren wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> KW> By the way, it's useful to map 911 and 112 onto your 999
> KW> route for the benefit of foreigners who don't know any better.
>

Well, while you are at it, you might as well add-in 000, because that is
what we use.

(BTW, why is it that people used 000, 999, 911, etc for EMERGENCY calls
(every second counts) when we used to dial from rotary dial phones,
where dialling a 0 or 9 takes a long time compared to dialling a 1....
Why didn't we all use 111, or something similar?)

Regards,
Adam

_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users