Plans to boost resilience of 999 system announced
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68625233

"The government has announced new measures it says will boost the
resilience of the 999 system, following its worst outage in almost 90 years.

A nationwide technical issue meant calls were not connected to emergency
services in June 2023.

The government will increase its oversight of any future incidents and
improve communications between emergency services.

BT, which manages the system, says it "fell short of its own high
standards."

Ofcom is investigating the telecoms firm, which took responsibility for
the fault, with the outcome expected in the coming months."

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 22/03/2024 12:04, Java Jive wrote:
> Plans to boost resilience of 999 system announced
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68625233
>
> "The government has announced new measures it says will boost the
> resilience of the 999 system, following its worst outage in almost 90
> years.
>
> A nationwide technical issue meant calls were not connected to emergency
> services in June 2023.
>
> The government will increase its oversight of any future incidents and
> improve communications between emergency services.
>
> BT, which manages the system, says it "fell short of its own high
> standards."
>
> Ofcom is investigating the telecoms firm, which took responsibility for
> the fault, with the outcome expected in the coming months."
>

I am not completely sure that this is "news"

Some of these enhancements were supposed to be implemented when the
ESMCP was rolled out - but that was kicked off more than 10 years ago.

On 22/03/2024 12:23, Abandoned Trolley wrote:
>
> I am not completely sure that this is "news"
>
> Some of these enhancements were supposed to be implemented when the
> ESMCP was rolled out - but that was kicked off more than 10 years ago.

I think it has been standard for years for all the emergency services to
be able to hand over to adjacent areas in the event of failures or
extremely busy periods.

On several occasions the Scottish Ambulance Service had to reroute all
999 calls to Northern Ireland and they did the control and dispatching
of ambulances from there - pre-AIRWAVE and whatever they have now.

JMB99 wrote:

> Abandoned Trolley wrote:
>
>> I am not completely sure that this is "news"
>>
>> Some of these enhancements were supposed to be implemented when the
>> ESMCP was rolled out - but that was kicked off more than 10 years ago.

There are some voices within the service I'm most familiar with who say
"It'll never happen"

> I think it has been standard for years for all the emergency services to
> be able to hand over to adjacent areas in the event of failures or
> extremely busy periods.

Yes, and not always adjacent, can be the opposite end of the country.

On Fri 22/03/2024 13:44, Andy Burns wrote:
> JMB99 wrote:
>
>> Abandoned Trolley wrote:
>>
>>> I am not completely sure that this is "news"
>>>
>>> Some of these enhancements were supposed to be implemented when the
>>> ESMCP was rolled out - but that was kicked off more than 10 years ago.
>
> There are some voices within the service I'm most familiar with who say
> "It'll never happen"
>
>> I think it has been standard for years for all the emergency services
>> to be able to hand over to adjacent areas in the event of failures or
>> extremely busy periods.
>
> Yes, and not always adjacent, can be the opposite end of the country.
>

Correct. N Yorks hand off to Cornwall (or is that Devon and Cornwall or
SWAS?)

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:35:41 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 22/03/2024 12:23, Abandoned Trolley wrote:
>>
>> I am not completely sure that this is "news"
>>
>> Some of these enhancements were supposed to be implemented when the
>> ESMCP was rolled out - but that was kicked off more than 10 years ago.
>
>
>
>I think it has been standard for years for all the emergency services to
>be able to hand over to adjacent areas in the event of failures or
>extremely busy periods.
>

The OP's message was about the failure of the 999 telephone system.
The Fire Services Act of 1947 (Section 2) requires fire services to
provide mutual assistance, so one authority can call on the resources
of another, usually adjacent, when required, on an ad hoc basis.
Section 12 permits the functions of one authority to be discharged by
another by prior agreement. So an area of south Notts is, or used to
be, covered by Loughborough fire station in Leics, because their
appliances could get there more quickly than Notts'. Not far away, the
area around Old Dalby was covered by the Army Fire Service on the army
base there, that I suspect I suspect was closed a good few years ago;
it's nearly 25 years since I left Leics Fire Service.

On 22/03/2024 16:24, Woody wrote:
> On Fri 22/03/2024 13:44, Andy Burns wrote:
>> JMB99 wrote:
>>
>>> Abandoned Trolley wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am not completely sure that this is "news"
>>>>
>>>> Some of these enhancements were supposed to be implemented when the
>>>> ESMCP was rolled out - but that was kicked off more than 10 years ago.
>>
>> There are some voices within the service I'm most familiar with who
>> say "It'll never happen"
>>
>>> I think it has been standard for years for all the emergency services
>>> to be able to hand over to adjacent areas in the event of failures or
>>> extremely busy periods.
>>
>> Yes, and not always adjacent, can be the opposite end of the country.
>>
>
> Correct. N Yorks hand off to Cornwall (or is that Devon and Cornwall or
> SWAS?)

I've read somewhere that the choice of a faraway backup centre is
deliberate, to cope with widespread disasters which might affect a
neighbouring ambulance region as well as the one which would normally
handle the call. The thinking is that if you are in Yorkshire, it has to
be a bloody big disaster also to affect Cornwall, but it might affect,
for example, Lancashire.

NY wrote:

> Woody wrote:
>>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>> JMB99 wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think it has been standard for years for all the emergency
>>>> services to be able to hand over to adjacent areas in the event of
>>>> failures or extremely busy periods.
>>>
>>> Yes, and not always adjacent, can be the opposite end of the country.
>>
>> Correct. N Yorks hand off to Cornwall (or is that Devon and Cornwall
>> or SWAS?)
>
> I've read somewhere that the choice of a faraway backup centre is
> deliberate, to cope with widespread disasters which might affect a
> neighbouring ambulance region as well as the one which would normally
> handle the call. The thinking is that if you are in Yorkshire, it has to
> be a bloody big disaster also to affect Cornwall, but it might affect,
> for example, Lancashire.

Correct, but local knowledge (e.g. road names/numbers) is not likely to
be as good, perhaps not as critical as it once was, with EISEC knowing
mobile location etc.

On 24/03/2024 05:54, Andy Burns wrote:
> Correct, but local knowledge (e.g. road names/numbers) is not likely to
> be as good, perhaps not as critical as it once was, with EISEC knowing
> mobile location etc.

All emergency services and other call centres seem to rely heavily on
online mapping systems rather than local knowledge.

On 23/03/2024 16:16, Peter Johnson wrote:
> The OP's message was about the failure of the 999 telephone system.
> The Fire Services Act of 1947 (Section 2) requires fire services to
> provide mutual assistance, so one authority can call on the resources
> of another, usually adjacent, when required, on an ad hoc basis.
> Section 12 permits the functions of one authority to be discharged by
> another by prior agreement. So an area of south Notts is, or used to
> be, covered by Loughborough fire station in Leics, because their
> appliances could get there more quickly than Notts'. Not far away, the
> area around Old Dalby was covered by the Army Fire Service on the army
> base there, that I suspect I suspect was closed a good few years ago;
> it's nearly 25 years since I left Leics Fire Service.

Pre-AIRWAVE there were areas of the Highland where police (and perhaps
fire) carried to radios so they had comms in adjacent areas. In those
days there were some incompatible systems in different areas, typically
just AM or FM because there were many parts of the UK with adjacent
forces using AM or FM. There was at least one radio type that could
operate anywhere in the UK (a friend had one in his car). It was easier
later because every channel in the radio could be programmed differently.

By the way, I was told that in those days the police would sometimes
arrange to use a channel on an adjacent force's radio system so the
baddies would not hear them if they had a scanner on the local force's
channel.

On 24/03/2024 09:55, JMB99 wrote:
> On 24/03/2024 05:54, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Correct, but local knowledge (e.g. road names/numbers) is not likely
>> to be as good, perhaps not as critical as it once was, with EISEC
>> knowing mobile location etc.
>
>
>
> All emergency services and other call centres seem to rely heavily on
> online mapping systems rather than local knowledge.

Unfortunately they are at the mercy of how good the search facilities
are on the mapping database.

When the "M1 A 123.4" signs every 500 metres were first introduced, I
was driving on the M1 somewhere in Derbyshire or Nottinghamshire, a long
way from my start and end points. I'd no idea exactly where I was, in
terms of junctions.

I saw a car crash on the opposite carriageway so I dialled 999 and
reported it: "Crash on M1 northbound. I have just passed sign "M1 A
123,4" on the southbound carriageway and the crash is about a mile north
of that point on the opposite, northbound carriageway".

Clear and unambiguous, you'd think. No. The police emergency operator
did not have a *clue* how to process that information. He wanted a
postcode (random places on a motorway don't have postcodes allocated to
them) or the last junction I'd passed (no idea - wasn't paying attention
because I know I'm a long way short of where I will leave the motorway).

I offered to stop and read the old-fashioned number from the red and
white marked posts on the hard shoulder. No better - his system couldn't
handle that info either. If I didn't have a postcode or a road name or a
junction number, he was stuffed.

This was in the days of non-smart phones, so my phone didn't have a GPS
for me to read OS grid reference or latitude/longitude - though I wonder
whether that would have helped at all...

I emailed the police force when I got back to report the problem, in
case it was a system or training problem. I had a response from a senior
officer who was appalled at the problem and had pulled the recording of
my call, which he agreed was unambiguous and concise. He had identified
"a training issue".

NY wrote:

[snip]

>
> I emailed the police force when I got back to report the problem, in
> case it was a system or training problem. I had a response from a senior
> officer who was appalled at the problem and had pulled the recording of
> my call, which he agreed was unambiguous and concise. He had identified
> "a training issue".

I suspect the same problem with "wot free werds".

I can imagine calling the police with 'Colchester Town Hall' and their
response being to send a vehicle to Stansted Airport or somwhere equally
irrelevant.

--
Graham J

>
> I can imagine calling the police with 'Colchester Town Hall' and their
> response being to send a vehicle to Stansted Airport or somwhere equally
> irrelevant.
>

Like Lowestoft Town Hall ?

On 22 Mar 2024 12:04, Java Jive wrote:
> Plans to boost resilience of 999 system announced
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68625233
>
> "The government has announced new measures it says will boost the
> resilience of the 999 system, following its worst outage in almost 90 years.
>
> A nationwide technical issue meant calls were not connected to emergency
> services in June 2023.
>
> The government will increase its oversight of any future incidents and
> improve communications between emergency services.
>
> BT, which manages the system, says it "fell short of its own high
> standards."
>
> Ofcom is investigating the telecoms firm, which took responsibility for
> the fault, with the outcome expected in the coming months."
>

Interesting but not surprising to see this post end up with discussions
about "first contact" centres in the emergency services when the news
article is entirely about the 999 network run by BT, which is between
the user and first contact.

Oh well.

On 24/03/2024 05:54, Andy Burns wrote:
> Correct, but local knowledge (e.g. road names/numbers) is not likely to
> be as good, perhaps not as critical as it once was, with EISEC knowing
> mobile location etc.

The problems arise when the call centre operator then looks at the
accurate (hopefully) position on his computer mapping system and picks
the nearest named location which is often somewhere that most people
have never heard of.

On 24/03/2024 11:27, NY wrote:
> I offered to stop and read the old-fashioned number from the red and
> white marked posts on the hard shoulder. No better - his system couldn't
> handle that info either. If I didn't have a postcode or a road name or a
> junction number, he was stuffed.

I remember years ago reporting a parked car with a very out of date tax
disc. They wanted the postcode even though I was hundreds of miles from
home in the main street of a small town and could name the shops near
the car.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:05:32 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 24/03/2024 05:54, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Correct, but local knowledge (e.g. road names/numbers) is not likely to
>> be as good, perhaps not as critical as it once was, with EISEC knowing
>> mobile location etc.
>
>
>The problems arise when the call centre operator then looks at the
>accurate (hopefully) position on his computer mapping system and picks
>the nearest named location which is often somewhere that most people
>have never heard of.

Is "What Three Words" still a thing?

On 25/03/2024 14:16, Codger wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:05:32 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 24/03/2024 05:54, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Correct, but local knowledge (e.g. road names/numbers) is not likely to
>>> be as good, perhaps not as critical as it once was, with EISEC knowing
>>> mobile location etc.
>>
>>
>> The problems arise when the call centre operator then looks at the
>> accurate (hopefully) position on his computer mapping system and picks
>> the nearest named location which is often somewhere that most people
>> have never heard of.
>
> Is "What Three Words" still a thing?
>

https://what3words.com/burns.crazy.critic

Codger wrote:

> JMB99 wrote:
>
>> The problems arise when the call centre operator then looks at the
>> accurate (hopefully) position on his computer mapping system and picks
>> the nearest named location which is often somewhere that most people
>> have never heard of.
>
> Is "What Three Words" still a thing?

Now, was that caller trying to say

<https://what3words.com/think.credits.apply>

or

<https://what3words.com/think.credit.supply>

before they got cut off?

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:52:58 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

>Codger wrote:
>
>> JMB99 wrote:
>>
>>> The problems arise when the call centre operator then looks at the
>>> accurate (hopefully) position on his computer mapping system and picks
>>> the nearest named location which is often somewhere that most people
>>> have never heard of.
>>
>> Is "What Three Words" still a thing?
>
>Now, was that caller trying to say
>
><https://what3words.com/think.credits.apply>
>
>or
>
><https://what3words.com/think.credit.supply>
>
>before they got cut off?
>

No wonder it has never really caught on!

Codger <codger524@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:52:58 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>
>> Codger wrote:
>>
>>> JMB99 wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problems arise when the call centre operator then looks at the
>>>> accurate (hopefully) position on his computer mapping system and picks
>>>> the nearest named location which is often somewhere that most people
>>>> have never heard of.
>>>
>>> Is "What Three Words" still a thing?
>>
>> Now, was that caller trying to say
>>
>> <https://what3words.com/think.credits.apply>
>>
>> or
>>
>> <https://what3words.com/think.credit.supply>
>>
>> before they got cut off?
>>
>
> No wonder it has never really caught on!
>

It needs to be what4words, the extra one being a checksum.

On 26/03/2024 07:26, Codger wrote:
> No wonder it has never really caught on!

There have been a number of failings in the Three Words system that have
been widely publicised and some emergency services have stopped
encouraging its use.

Tweed wrote:

[snip]

>
> It needs to be what4words, the extra one being a checksum.
>

Probably not. A checksum would only allow for error detection.

A proper error correction system would identify spelling errors,
mispronunciation and homonyms:

wat free werds
what fore words
etc ...

It also needs a "sanity check" so that a mistake can be identified by
its context. For example a grid reference quoted by crew on a sinking
boat would immediately be queried by land-based emergency staff if that
reference was for somewhere on land.

It would also have to work in foreign languages - presumably every
location has a what3words identifier in all the languages that the
system supports. Then imagine an English speaking person trying to give
a French what3words identifier to the emergency services in France.

Ultimately the problem is that everybody must have access to the
database of identifiers and a map.

By contrast grid references are already widely published (on every map)
and can be worked out from first principles

--
Graham J

On 26/03/2024 08:19, JMB99 wrote:
> On 26/03/2024 07:26, Codger wrote:
>> No wonder it has never really caught on!
>
>
> There have been a number of failings in the Three Words system that have
> been widely publicised and some emergency services have stopped
> encouraging its use.
>
>

You are almost suggesting that the phonetic alphabet was introduced for
a reason

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> Tweed wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> It needs to be what4words, the extra one being a checksum.
>>
>
> Probably not. A checksum would only allow for error detection.
>
> A proper error correction system would identify spelling errors,
> mispronunciation and homonyms:
>
> wat free werds
> what fore words
> etc ...
>
> It also needs a "sanity check" so that a mistake can be identified by
> its context. For example a grid reference quoted by crew on a sinking
> boat would immediately be queried by land-based emergency staff if that
> reference was for somewhere on land.
>
> It would also have to work in foreign languages - presumably every
> location has a what3words identifier in all the languages that the
> system supports. Then imagine an English speaking person trying to give
> a French what3words identifier to the emergency services in France.
>
> Ultimately the problem is that everybody must have access to the
> database of identifiers and a map.
>
> By contrast grid references are already widely published (on every map)
> and can be worked out from first principles
>

A vanishingly small number of the population are able to understand let
alone use grid references. You have to trade ease of use vs accuracy.

Your example of a misquoted grid reference showing a sailor to be on land
is in itself an example of a checksum.

Grid references quoted as numbers will also suffer in translation across
language barriers.

All systems require a lookup against a database, either a map (paper or
electronic) for grid references, a postcode database, or the W3W database.