In <trei03dtj90r6jnvc25pkn4542ckg5dhsh@4ax.com> Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net> writes:

>On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:13:50 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
><dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

>>What rationale are the cellcos there using to get
>>away with this? I know why they _want_ to, since
>>they'd rather make the money...

>I would be VERY surprised if they charge for an EMERGENCY call. My
>guess is that this would have been done to prevent HOAX calls being
>placed by persons wanting to remain anonymous.

I guess I wasn't clear enough... The cellcos here in
the US are mildly pissed at the mandated 911 since
it means that a modest number of people keep an
unregistered (and no monthly fees...) phone around
for 911.

They much prefer (and heavily market) all sorts of
low cost (and prepaid) services.

They've grudgingly accepted the mandate, but I'm sure
their CFOs curse the FCC over all those "lost" accounts,
even if they're small amounts.

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