My point is more along the line of if you're depending on a service which provides only best-effort on uptime (as Bill Herrin mentioned, some providers can barely manage 2 nines of 911 uptime) and to which you're connected by a single, fault-prone connection, and which provides no guarantee of service even if you CAN contact them, calling it "critical" is kind of a joke, and you'd probably get laughed at by a risk analyst. If you're serious about protecting health and home, you'd better have some other plan in place that doesn't have a ridiculous number of single points of failure.
Pete Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >I've never met a dog properly trained in ACLS and I'm pretty sure that a gun >isn't even useful for BLS. > >Owen > >On Aug 4, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Peter Kristolaitis <alte...@alter3d.ca> wrote: > >> Considering that none of the services that can be dispatched by 911 are >> legally required to help you in most North American jurisdictions (i.e. if >> you call 911 and the police don't respond until they finish eating their box >> of donuts, they're not criminally or civilly liable), having working 911 >> services really doesn't guarantee you anything. Most security monitoring >> companies have contracts that are completely worthless and guarantee nothing >> as well. >> >> If you're depending on 911 for life safety and property protection, I'd >> recommend revising that plan to include a dog and/or gun. :-) >> >> - Pete >> >> >> >> Nathan Eisenberg <nat...@atlasnetworks.us> wrote: >> >>>> Residences aren't critical infrastructure, no matter how angry the owners >>>> get. >>> >>> 911 access isn't a critical service? Fire and security panels aren't >>> critical services? >>> >>> If basic life safety and property protection aren't critical services, I'm >>> not sure what is. These are peoples' lives and families and homes. There >>> is nothing - repeat, nothing - more important than that. It is absolutely >>> a critical service. >>> >>> Nathan Eisenberg >>> >>> >
