how-to block ads
|
Trimline
Premium
join:2004-10-24
Orlando, FL
 ·Callcentric
 ·AT&T Southeast
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to WhyADuck
Re: Crap just hit the fan, but something's not rig
I saw the news story run on local TV. What they didn't tell you in the article was:
1. Vonage proved that the 911 calls did complete (actually twice).
2. The husband ran next door and also called 911 via POTS.
The couple's main complaint was to "ban" VoIP completely. I was shocked when the Mr. Waller says Vonage and all other VoIP providers "were trying to save a few bucks" by not providing true 911. Huh? Who was trying to save money here?
WESH channel 2 was the only news station out of five major news stations in the Orlando metro area to carry this story. I do sympathise with the couple for losing their baby, but in this case the evidence on the reel suggested otherwise.
--
FWD#537129 | |
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| said by Trimline  :I saw the news story run on local TV. What they didn't tell you in the article was: 1. Vonage proved that the 911 calls did complete (actually twice). 2. The husband ran next door and also called 911 via POTS. Those are VERY significant omissions in the story, obviously. That just further goes to support my theory that this story did not just happen to appear on the radar at this point in time, just by sheer coincidence.
said by Trimline :The couple's main complaint was to "ban" VoIP completely. I was shocked when the Mr. Waller says Vonage and all other VoIP providers "were trying to save a few bucks" by not providing true 911. Huh? Who was trying to save money here? This is the nation where if you buy a cup of hot coffee, set it in your lap, spill it and burn yourself, instead of accepting personal responsibility for being an idiot you sue the fast food joint you got the coffee from. This forces them to stop serving really hot coffee. Too bad if anyone else wanted their coffee really hot, we have to protect all the idiots in this country from themselves even if it inconveniences everyone else.
said by Trimline :WESH channel 2 was the only news station out of five in the Orlando metro area to carry this story. I do sympathise with the couple for losing their baby, but in this case the evidence on the reel suggested otherwise. Do me a favor, make a note of whether you see a higher percentage of advertising on that station than on the stations that didn't run the story, from the local incumbent telephone companies or anyone else who might have an axe to grind in this situation. If nothing else, you can fault the station for going for the sensational angle rather than reporting the complete and accurate story (of course, I have never yet seen any TV station report any story completely accurately, in any situation where I've had personal knowledge of what really happened). But at worst, this might be one of those stations where the sales department actually influences which news is covered and which is buried (on such stations you'll never see a negative story about one of their big advertisers unless the other stations break it first, and conversely, a big advertiser can request that a certain story be carried).
This story was "news" a month and a half ago. Now it is propaganda, coming out a day or two after FCC Commissioner Martin makes it known that he wants VoIP companies to be forced to offer 911. I don't believe in coincidence, not when events move like this. This sort of "management" of public opinion is exactly what public relations firms do, and some of them are very good at it. If I were a gambler, I'd bet that there is a public relations firm mixed up in this somewhere, and that they are being funded by a telephone company (or, far less likely, a cable company).
Some questions I wish we had the answers to: Who actually designed that web site? Where is it being hosted? Who actually paid for the domain registration and the web hosting? Who or what inspired the TV station to run this story late on a Friday afternoon, well after the event occurred? Was the mother contacted by ANYONE who offered their assistance in getting her story out, and if so, who pays that person's wages or salary? We will probably never know the answers to such questions, unless there is some kind of official investigation somewhere down the road. | |
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| said by WhyADuck :This is the nation where if you buy a cup of hot coffee, set it in your lap, spill it and burn yourself, instead of accepting personal responsibility for being an idiot you sue the fast food joint you got the coffee from. This forces them to stop serving really hot coffee. Too bad if anyone else wanted their coffee really hot, we have to protect all the idiots in this country from themselves even if it inconveniences everyone else. Obligatory clarification -- that's a perennial bad example -- the McDonald's case was notable for just how undrinkably hot the coffee was, how severely the customer was burned, and just how cavalier (and culpable) McDonald's was. (They'd had 700 claims over 10 years.)
»www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
»www.atlanet.org/pressroom/FACTS/···ase.aspx
McDonald's itself admitted they were serving coffee so incredibly hot it was not fit for human consumption.
McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
...
A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body. / End of Clarification
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
|
