• iPhone battery replacement

    From Don Y@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jun 1 13:56:37 2024
    The battery in SWMBO's iPhone has swelled. Not surprising as it
    is ANCIENT (6s).

    She is asking for it to be replaced: "I *like* that phone!"

    Is this actually worth the effort, given that batteries are likely
    knock-offs (dubious quality) and disassembly/assembly is undoubtedly
    a lesson in fumble-fingers? And, what's the likely life expectancy
    of a "new" battery?

    I've offered her either of two phones that I use but "they're too big".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jun 1 17:19:22 2024
    On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 13:56:37 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
    wrote:

    The battery in SWMBO's iPhone has swelled. Not surprising as it
    is ANCIENT (6s).

    She is asking for it to be replaced: "I *like* that phone!"

    Is this actually worth the effort, given that batteries are likely
    knock-offs (dubious quality) and disassembly/assembly is undoubtedly
    a lesson in fumble-fingers? And, what's the likely life expectancy
    of a "new" battery?

    I've offered her either of two phones that I use but "they're too big".

    Exactly what is it that she has?

    Apple likely has a phone of that approximate size.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Joe Gwinn on Sat Jun 1 14:51:23 2024
    On 6/1/2024 2:19 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 13:56:37 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
    wrote:

    The battery in SWMBO's iPhone has swelled. Not surprising as it
    is ANCIENT (6s).

    ---------------^^

    She is asking for it to be replaced: "I *like* that phone!"

    Is this actually worth the effort, given that batteries are likely
    knock-offs (dubious quality) and disassembly/assembly is undoubtedly
    a lesson in fumble-fingers? And, what's the likely life expectancy
    of a "new" battery?

    I've offered her either of two phones that I use but "they're too big".

    Exactly what is it that she has?

    Apple likely has a phone of that approximate size.

    Or, use one of the other phones, here. I see very little difference
    in size, weight, etc. "Creature of habit"

    (I'm also not keen on having to field her comments as to "Why X doesn't
    work like it USED to...")

    (sigh) The land line was SO much better (for our uses). But, they just
    aren't maintaining the (below grade) copper any more.

    [We had a pair of uniformed officers show up, unannounced, in the wee
    hours of the morning -- hands on holsters -- inquiring who had called
    "911" from our residence. "Huh? No one." They claimed that they
    often get false alarms from neighborhoods with buried services... as if
    a series of snap-crackle-pops appeared to be 911 dialpulsed (I'm not
    quite sure how that translates into 911 and not 823 or 645 or 15276...)]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jun 1 18:05:40 2024
    On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:51:23 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
    wrote:

    On 6/1/2024 2:19 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 13:56:37 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
    wrote:

    The battery in SWMBO's iPhone has swelled. Not surprising as it
    is ANCIENT (6s).

    ---------------^^

    She is asking for it to be replaced: "I *like* that phone!"

    Is this actually worth the effort, given that batteries are likely
    knock-offs (dubious quality) and disassembly/assembly is undoubtedly
    a lesson in fumble-fingers? And, what's the likely life expectancy
    of a "new" battery?

    I've offered her either of two phones that I use but "they're too big".

    Exactly what is it that she has?

    Apple likely has a phone of that approximate size.

    Or, use one of the other phones, here. I see very little difference
    in size, weight, etc. "Creature of habit"

    (I'm also not keen on having to field her comments as to "Why X doesn't
    work like it USED to...")

    (sigh) The land line was SO much better (for our uses). But, they just >aren't maintaining the (below grade) copper any more.

    [We had a pair of uniformed officers show up, unannounced, in the wee
    hours of the morning -- hands on holsters -- inquiring who had called
    "911" from our residence. "Huh? No one." They claimed that they
    often get false alarms from neighborhoods with buried services... as if
    a series of snap-crackle-pops appeared to be 911 dialpulsed (I'm not
    quite sure how that translates into 911 and not 823 or 645 or 15276...)]

    They don't need to. Only 911 causes a detectable response.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From piglet@21:1/5 to Don Y on Sat Jun 1 22:09:23 2024
    Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
    The battery in SWMBO's iPhone has swelled. Not surprising as it
    is ANCIENT (6s).

    She is asking for it to be replaced: "I *like* that phone!"

    Is this actually worth the effort, given that batteries are likely
    knock-offs (dubious quality) and disassembly/assembly is undoubtedly
    a lesson in fumble-fingers? And, what's the likely life expectancy
    of a "new" battery?

    I've offered her either of two phones that I use but "they're too big".



    It is not difficult, check ifixit com and countless YouTube videos. Over
    the years I have had complete successes with iPhone 4s 5 5c 6 6s and 8 -
    the cheap eBay knockoff batteries give new lease of life to old phones,
    seem to last a couple of years, possibly not quite as long as Apple
    original but by then there are other reasons to retire that phone and move
    up.

    --
    piglet

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to piglet on Sat Jun 1 16:04:24 2024
    On 6/1/2024 3:09 PM, piglet wrote:
    Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
    The battery in SWMBO's iPhone has swelled. Not surprising as it
    is ANCIENT (6s).

    She is asking for it to be replaced: "I *like* that phone!"

    Is this actually worth the effort, given that batteries are likely
    knock-offs (dubious quality) and disassembly/assembly is undoubtedly
    a lesson in fumble-fingers? And, what's the likely life expectancy
    of a "new" battery?

    I've offered her either of two phones that I use but "they're too big".

    It is not difficult, check ifixit com and countless YouTube videos. Over

    Yes, I figure there must be a relatively large market and most "customers"
    are relatively unskilled in this sort of activity. I had hoped, however,
    that the batteries would be shit or the phones would look cosmetically
    damaged (to give me an excuse not to undertake the activity :< )

    the years I have had complete successes with iPhone 4s 5 5c 6 6s and 8 -
    the cheap eBay knockoff batteries give new lease of life to old phones,
    seem to last a couple of years, possibly not quite as long as Apple
    original but by then there are other reasons to retire that phone and move up.

    We have an iPhone X, as well, but it is a fair bit larger and runs a
    newer version of iOS. Plus, appears to have made some other changes
    to the UI (e.g., the home button is replaced by an upward swipe)
    that she points out.

    I will undertake the repair as it will likely take less time than
    shopping for a new phone for her. I would have prefered that effort
    to move to 5G, though... (it's only a matter of time for the 6S and X
    to be decommisioned by 4G's retirement)

    Thanks for sharing your experience!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Joe Gwinn on Sat Jun 1 16:00:13 2024
    On 6/1/2024 3:05 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:51:23 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
    wrote:

    On 6/1/2024 2:19 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 13:56:37 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
    wrote:

    The battery in SWMBO's iPhone has swelled. Not surprising as it
    is ANCIENT (6s).

    ---------------^^

    She is asking for it to be replaced: "I *like* that phone!"

    Is this actually worth the effort, given that batteries are likely
    knock-offs (dubious quality) and disassembly/assembly is undoubtedly
    a lesson in fumble-fingers? And, what's the likely life expectancy
    of a "new" battery?

    I've offered her either of two phones that I use but "they're too big". >>>
    Exactly what is it that she has?

    Apple likely has a phone of that approximate size.

    Or, use one of the other phones, here. I see very little difference
    in size, weight, etc. "Creature of habit"

    (I'm also not keen on having to field her comments as to "Why X doesn't
    work like it USED to...")

    (sigh) The land line was SO much better (for our uses). But, they just
    aren't maintaining the (below grade) copper any more.

    [We had a pair of uniformed officers show up, unannounced, in the wee
    hours of the morning -- hands on holsters -- inquiring who had called
    "911" from our residence. "Huh? No one." They claimed that they
    often get false alarms from neighborhoods with buried services... as if
    a series of snap-crackle-pops appeared to be 911 dialpulsed (I'm not
    quite sure how that translates into 911 and not 823 or 645 or 15276...)]

    They don't need to. Only 911 causes a detectable response.

    211 gives us access to community services
    311 for city gummit
    411 directory assistance
    711 TDD relay
    811 blue stake (utility locating)

    Of course, only 911 would cause someone to appear at your home.

    I question how the correct dialpulse timing is detected as a
    rotary dial phone imposes a specific make-break ratio and pulse
    rate.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Don Y on Sun Jun 2 14:08:46 2024
    On 02/06/2024 00:04, Don Y wrote:
    On 6/1/2024 3:09 PM, piglet wrote:
    Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
    The battery in SWMBO's iPhone has swelled.  Not surprising as it
    is ANCIENT (6s).

    She is asking for it to be replaced:  "I *like* that phone!"

    Is this actually worth the effort, given that batteries are likely
    knock-offs (dubious quality) and disassembly/assembly is undoubtedly
    a lesson in fumble-fingers?  And, what's the likely life expectancy
    of a "new" battery?

    I've offered her either of two phones that I use but "they're too big".

    It is not difficult, check ifixit com and countless YouTube videos. Over

    Yes, I figure there must be a relatively large market and most "customers" are relatively unskilled in this sort of activity.  I had hoped, however, that the batteries would be shit or the phones would look cosmetically damaged (to give me an excuse not to undertake the activity  :<  )

    It is doable but be very careful separating the parts.

    Sharp tools and a moderate amount of force in exactly the right places
    is involved. Newer models tend to be much more difficult to dismantle
    reliably. You can sort of tell which are most difficult by looking at
    how much third party repairers charge for a battery swap.

    My friend that does it a lot has a specially sharpened wallpaper scraper
    for applying the right amount of force over a long joint. Various
    YouTube videos show how to do it - there is scope to devaluing it if you
    break the glass or injuring yourself if you slip with a sharp blade.

    The ones with copious amounts of hot melt glue inside are very tricky. I
    think the 6s will be old enough not to have that problem. Other option
    might be to find one secondhand from the likes of Cex or whatever the US equivalent is called. A 6s won't have much resale value now.


    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Sun Jun 2 06:49:21 2024
    On 6/2/2024 6:08 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
    I've offered her either of two phones that I use but "they're too big". >>>
    It is not difficult, check ifixit com and countless YouTube videos. Over

    Yes, I figure there must be a relatively large market and most "customers" >> are relatively unskilled in this sort of activity.  I had hoped, however, >> that the batteries would be shit or the phones would look cosmetically
    damaged (to give me an excuse not to undertake the activity  :<  )

    It is doable but be very careful separating the parts.

    It's the adhesives that will pose a problem as you don't know what they
    are adhered to (and the sorts of forces that separating them might impose
    that could damage those other things).

    Sharp tools and a moderate amount of force in exactly the right places is involved. Newer models tend to be much more difficult to dismantle reliably. You can sort of tell which are most difficult by looking at how much third party repairers charge for a battery swap.

    The case is already swelled open so it will just be a problem of
    sorting out the parts inside.

    As they likely weren't designed with "casual" disassembly in mind,
    I am sure the goals were more of how to get it together cheaply
    and efficiently.

    [I have made NO plans for my current designs to be repairable. It's
    just not worth the labor involved for things so small...]

    My friend that does it a lot has a specially sharpened wallpaper scraper for applying the right amount of force over a long joint. Various YouTube videos show how to do it - there is scope to devaluing it if you break the glass or injuring yourself if you slip with a sharp blade.

    The ones with copious amounts of hot melt glue inside are very tricky. I think
    the 6s will be old enough not to have that problem. Other option might be to find one secondhand from the likes of Cex or whatever the US equivalent is called. A 6s won't have much resale value now.

    ISTR seeing them in the $30-40 range -- which struck me as a lot
    for such an old device (with a battery that is likely in the same
    overall condition as this one).

    I have an activation locked 8 that I can possibly pilfer a spare
    battery from if the "new" one doesn't pan out. It's just annoying
    to be dealing with something like this and, at the same time,
    being beseeched to make another 450 Benne Wafers... <frown>

    (sigh) And all for a *phone*?? We REALLY avoid using the phone,
    prefering email or face-to-face meetings (where you don't have to wonder
    as to the availability of the other party or their CURRENT time zone)
    and, receiving calls is just an imposition for the convenience of the
    *caller*! <frown>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertrand Sindri@21:1/5 to Don Y on Thu Jun 6 03:21:18 2024
    Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
    On 6/1/2024 3:05 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:51:23 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
    wrote:
    [We had a pair of uniformed officers show up, unannounced, in the wee
    hours of the morning -- hands on holsters -- inquiring who had called
    "911" from our residence. "Huh? No one." They claimed that they often
    get false alarms from neighborhoods with buried services... as if a
    series of snap-crackle-pops appeared to be 911 dialpulsed (I'm not quite >>> sure how that translates into 911 and not 823 or 645 or 15276...)]

    They don't need to. Only 911 causes a detectable response.

    211 gives us access to community services
    311 for city gummit
    411 directory assistance
    711 TDD relay
    811 blue stake (utility locating)

    Of course, only 911 would cause someone to appear at your home.

    I question how the correct dialpulse timing is detected as a
    rotary dial phone imposes a specific make-break ratio and pulse
    rate.

    Blame this on the lawyers. To avoid issues of liability, if the telephone switch detects a pulse pattern that might plausably be interpreted as an attempt to "dial" 911, then the phone company forwards your info on to the
    911 call center.

    Once the 911 call center has become involved, then the police have to handle
    it as if it were a request for emergency services.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Don Y on Thu Jun 6 11:29:11 2024
    On 02-June-24 5:51 am, Don Y wrote:

    (sigh)  The land line was SO much better (for our uses).  But, they just aren't maintaining the (below grade) copper any more.


    Subscribe to a VOIP service?

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Wed Jun 5 22:34:15 2024
    On 6/5/2024 8:29 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 02-June-24 5:51 am, Don Y wrote:

    (sigh)  The land line was SO much better (for our uses).  But, they just >> aren't maintaining the (below grade) copper any more.

    Subscribe to a VOIP service?

    Only POTS has (had?) mandated levels of service.

    VoIP over DSL leaves you with the availability of the DSL link
    to worry about.

    VoIP over cable, same difference.

    All carriers are vulnerable -- and to differing sorts of problems
    (with differing sorts of motivations to fix them!)

    It is amusing that the real "asset" that TPC has is the wire in
    the ground. Yet (here), they seem to treat it with disdain...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Bertrand Sindri on Thu Jun 6 05:34:58 2024
    On 6/5/2024 8:21 PM, Bertrand Sindri wrote:
    I question how the correct dialpulse timing is detected as a
    rotary dial phone imposes a specific make-break ratio and pulse
    rate.

    Blame this on the lawyers. To avoid issues of liability, if the telephone switch detects a pulse pattern that might plausably be interpreted as an attempt to "dial" 911, then the phone company forwards your info on to the 911 call center.

    But a dial-pulse needs to be an actual make-break of the loop, not just
    "line noise". Would outpulsing at, for example, 400Hz ever be considered
    a legitimate signal? (IIRC, dial-pulse rate was ~10Hz; are there "natural phenomena that even approach that with any sort of regularity?)

    And, why would the "signal" suddenly disappear and not be a regular happening? I.e., why only one visit in 30 years and not once a month?

    Once the 911 call center has become involved, then the police have to handle it as if it were a request for emergency services.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 6 08:52:48 2024
    On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 22:34:15 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
    wrote:

    On 6/5/2024 8:29 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 02-June-24 5:51 am, Don Y wrote:

    (sigh)  The land line was SO much better (for our uses).  But, they just >>> aren't maintaining the (below grade) copper any more.

    Subscribe to a VOIP service?

    Only POTS has (had?) mandated levels of service.

    VoIP over DSL leaves you with the availability of the DSL link
    to worry about.

    VoIP over cable, same difference.

    All carriers are vulnerable -- and to differing sorts of problems
    (with differing sorts of motivations to fix them!)

    It is amusing that the real "asset" that TPC has is the wire in
    the ground. Yet (here), they seem to treat it with disdain...


    We dumped the expensive AT&T POTS and went with the "free" cable
    telephone service. The cable phone thing works when it rains, which
    the AT&T line didn't.

    Of course we unplug the phones most of the time, to stop all of the
    spam calls.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Thu Jun 6 14:08:54 2024
    On 6/2/2024 6:08 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
    Yes, I figure there must be a relatively large market and most "customers" >> are relatively unskilled in this sort of activity.  I had hoped, however, >> that the batteries would be shit or the phones would look cosmetically
    damaged (to give me an excuse not to undertake the activity  :<  )

    It is doable but be very careful separating the parts.

    The case came apart easily as the battery had already "swelled" it apart.

    Sharp tools and a moderate amount of force in exactly the right places is involved. Newer models tend to be much more difficult to dismantle reliably. You can sort of tell which are most difficult by looking at how much third party repairers charge for a battery swap.

    The battery adhesive was the most troublesome. There's no easy way to get under it to scrape away at the adhesive (which essentially covers the entire inner battery surface).

    I opted for a slow application of isopropyl alcohol (91%) accompanied by a persistent bit of gentle persuasion. Setting the new battery (with fresh adhesive) in place ON THE FIRST GO required a bit more forethought ("You
    only get ONE chance to do this...")

    Now, to see how well it holds a charge. SWMBO is tickled to no longer
    have to deal with that other, "huge" phone.

    (it really is amusing to think people carry these things around with
    them. All to ensure their Pavlovian conditioning remains intact!)

    My friend that does it a lot has a specially sharpened wallpaper scraper for applying the right amount of force over a long joint. Various YouTube videos show how to do it - there is scope to devaluing it if you break the glass or injuring yourself if you slip with a sharp blade.

    I would have to consider if there might be value in such a tool for
    prying the battery out. This phone seemed to have a conformal "pocket"
    that surrounded the battery so slipping something between the pocket
    and the battery might be difficult.

    [I've a really old putty knife -- back when they were designed to be
    very thin and SHARP -- that might work in a future attempt. (I'll
    be pulling the battery out of an iPhone 8 as a spare for the 6 so
    this will gie me an opportunity to refine my approach -- with nothing
    at stake!)]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertrand Sindri@21:1/5 to Don Y on Sat Jun 8 16:49:11 2024
    Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
    On 6/5/2024 8:21 PM, Bertrand Sindri wrote:
    I question how the correct dialpulse timing is detected as a rotary
    dial phone imposes a specific make-break ratio and pulse rate.

    Blame this on the lawyers. To avoid issues of liability, if the
    telephone switch detects a pulse pattern that might plausably be
    interpreted as an attempt to "dial" 911, then the phone company
    forwards your info on to the 911 call center.

    But a dial-pulse needs to be an actual make-break of the loop, not
    just "line noise".

    Typical Don Y, thinking like an engineer. Did you miss the word
    "lawyers" above? Once *lawyers* are involved, all logic and all
    engineering regimen goes right out the window. Lawyers operate on
    "what could a potential jury of laymen be convinced to believe". So
    from the business's lawyer department (who's job it is to protect the
    phone company from being sued for negligence [among other things]) if
    "line noise" could be convincingly argued to a jury of laymen as an
    "attempt to contact emergency services" such that the jury would find
    the phone company liable for not routing the call to the 911 center,
    then indeed many patterns of "line noise" will be interpreted as an
    attempt to dial 911.

    Would outpulsing at, for example, 400Hz ever be considered a
    legitimate signal?

    If the defense lawyers thought a prosecutor could convince a jury of
    laymen that such a signal was an attempt at contacting 911 in a trial,
    then yes, it would be considered legitimate signal.

    (IIRC, dial-pulse rate was ~10Hz; are there "natural phenomena that
    even approach that with any sort of regularity?)

    Engineer: The dial pulse standard is 10Hz ± 4%. So we will make the
    switch recognize 10Hz ± 8% and reject everything else.

    Lawyer: Not good enough. Someone in peril, attempting to "dial" 911 by flashing the hook switch manually [1] will never meet a 10Hz ± 8%
    standard, you instead need to recognize just about everything that
    might plausibly look like 9 1 1 in order to protect us from being found
    guilty of negligence in a wrongful death suit and have to pay out $X
    billion in settlements.

    And, why would the "signal" suddenly disappear and not be a regular happening? I.e., why only one visit in 30 years and not once a
    month?

    Neither you, nor I, can possibly answer that question.

    [1] Presume they are trapped behind flames in a part of the building
    with only one of those usually incoming "dial-less" phones, all they can
    do is flash the hook in that situation.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Bertrand Sindri on Sat Jun 8 11:33:02 2024
    On 6/8/2024 9:49 AM, Bertrand Sindri wrote:
    Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
    On 6/5/2024 8:21 PM, Bertrand Sindri wrote:
    I question how the correct dialpulse timing is detected as a rotary
    dial phone imposes a specific make-break ratio and pulse rate.

    Blame this on the lawyers. To avoid issues of liability, if the
    telephone switch detects a pulse pattern that might plausably be
    interpreted as an attempt to "dial" 911, then the phone company
    forwards your info on to the 911 call center.

    But a dial-pulse needs to be an actual make-break of the loop, not
    just "line noise".

    Typical Don Y, thinking like an engineer. Did you miss the word
    "lawyers" above? Once *lawyers* are involved, all logic and all
    engineering regimen goes right out the window. Lawyers operate on
    "what could a potential jury of laymen be convinced to believe". So
    from the business's lawyer department (who's job it is to protect the
    phone company from being sued for negligence [among other things]) if
    "line noise" could be convincingly argued to a jury of laymen as an
    "attempt to contact emergency services" such that the jury would find
    the phone company liable for not routing the call to the 911 center,
    then indeed many patterns of "line noise" will be interpreted as an
    attempt to dial 911.

    Then how can they have decided that this HASN'T occurred at any
    other time on the same pair -- over a thirty year interval?

    Nothing REMOTELY able of being argued to a jury that it was an
    "out-of-spec" attempt at dialing 911?

    I.e., there is SOME criteria that they have used to determine
    THIS line noise could be argued as an attempt at 911. But, all
    of the other line noise wasn't.

    [I complained of a bad connection and had a lineman come out
    and spend half an hour monitoring the line. "Looks good to
    me!" Until, suddenly, you couldn't carry on a spoken conversation
    over the line: "Whoa! What just happened?" Yet, no uniformed
    officers...]

    Would outpulsing at, for example, 400Hz ever be considered a
    legitimate signal?

    If the defense lawyers thought a prosecutor could convince a jury of
    laymen that such a signal was an attempt at contacting 911 in a trial,
    then yes, it would be considered legitimate signal.

    (IIRC, dial-pulse rate was ~10Hz; are there "natural phenomena that
    even approach that with any sort of regularity?)

    Engineer: The dial pulse standard is 10Hz ± 4%. So we will make the
    switch recognize 10Hz ± 8% and reject everything else.

    Lawyer: Not good enough. Someone in peril, attempting to "dial" 911 by flashing the hook switch manually [1] will never meet a 10Hz ± 8%
    standard, you instead need to recognize just about everything that
    might plausibly look like 9 1 1 in order to protect us from being found guilty of negligence in a wrongful death suit and have to pay out $X
    billion in settlements.

    And, that has NEVER happened on this line, previously. So, how good is
    THAT criteria?

    Similarly, all lines recognize dial-pulse even if equipped with a DTMF stationset. So, why don't we hear of friends and neighbors getting
    similar visits? An absence of noise on those lines (buried in the
    same soil with the same drainage properties and precipitation patterns)?

    I.e., whatever criteria are used, it obviously is designed to reject MOST sources of line noise. Pity the folks trapped in that burning building
    who fail to hit whatever design window is accepted (WHILE the copper is burning)

    And, why would the "signal" suddenly disappear and not be a regular
    happening? I.e., why only one visit in 30 years and not once a
    month?

    Neither you, nor I, can possibly answer that question.

    [1] Presume they are trapped behind flames in a part of the building
    with only one of those usually incoming "dial-less" phones, all they can
    do is flash the hook in that situation.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertrand Sindri@21:1/5 to Don Y on Sat Jun 8 20:57:54 2024
    Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
    On 6/8/2024 9:49 AM, Bertrand Sindri wrote:
    Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
    On 6/5/2024 8:21 PM, Bertrand Sindri wrote:
    I question how the correct dialpulse timing is detected as a
    rotary dial phone imposes a specific make-break ratio and pulse
    rate.

    Blame this on the lawyers. To avoid issues of liability, if the
    telephone switch detects a pulse pattern that might plausably be
    interpreted as an attempt to "dial" 911, then the phone company
    forwards your info on to the 911 call center.

    But a dial-pulse needs to be an actual make-break of the loop, not
    just "line noise".

    Typical Don Y, thinking like an engineer. Did you miss the word
    "lawyers" above? Once *lawyers* are involved, all logic and all
    engineering regimen goes right out the window. Lawyers operate on
    "what could a potential jury of laymen be convinced to believe". So
    from the business's lawyer department (who's job it is to protect
    the phone company from being sued for negligence [among other
    things]) if "line noise" could be convincingly argued to a jury of
    laymen as an "attempt to contact emergency services" such that the
    jury would find the phone company liable for not routing the call to
    the 911 center, then indeed many patterns of "line noise" will be
    interpreted as an attempt to dial 911.

    Then how can they have decided that this HASN'T occurred at any other
    time on the same pair -- over a thirty year interval?

    Because, obviously, the other prior instances of random line noise
    bursts (if that is even what caused the "call", but you do reference
    what could be called a 'burst' below) did not trigger the switch to
    alert the 911 call center.

    Nothing REMOTELY able of being argued to a jury that it was an
    "out-of-spec" attempt at dialing 911?

    But, whatever was seen by the switch obviously matched some pattern it was programmed to recognize (evidence: the cops showing up asking about a 911 call).

    I.e., there is SOME criteria that they have used to determine
    THIS line noise could be argued as an attempt at 911. But, all
    of the other line noise wasn't.

    That much is obvious. They are, however, not telling you the criteria
    they are using.

    [I complained of a bad connection and had a lineman come out
    and spend half an hour monitoring the line. "Looks good to
    me!" Until, suddenly, you couldn't carry on a spoken conversation
    over the line: "Whoa! What just happened?" Yet, no uniformed
    officers...]

    That instance obviously did not generate random patterns that matched
    the criteria the switch was looking for. That, or, they disable the
    911 forwarding while a lineman's working on the line, to avoid having
    his efforts triggering spurious 911 forwards.

    Would outpulsing at, for example, 400Hz ever be considered a
    legitimate signal?

    If the defense lawyers thought a prosecutor could convince a jury of
    laymen that such a signal was an attempt at contacting 911 in a trial,
    then yes, it would be considered legitimate signal.

    (IIRC, dial-pulse rate was ~10Hz; are there "natural phenomena that
    even approach that with any sort of regularity?)

    Engineer: The dial pulse standard is 10Hz ± 4%. So we will make the
    switch recognize 10Hz ± 8% and reject everything else.

    Lawyer: Not good enough. Someone in peril, attempting to "dial" 911 by
    flashing the hook switch manually [1] will never meet a 10Hz ± 8%
    standard, you instead need to recognize just about everything that
    might plausibly look like 9 1 1 in order to protect us from being found
    guilty of negligence in a wrongful death suit and have to pay out $X
    billion in settlements.

    And, that has NEVER happened on this line, previously. So, how good is
    THAT criteria?

    But it has happened now. That is the non-intuitiveness of truly random
    actions at work. They can go a very long time before they randomly hit
    upon the right pattern. Then they could hit the right pattern every
    week for six months. Then go silent for thirty more years.

    Similarly, all lines recognize dial-pulse even if equipped with a
    DTMF stationset. So, why don't we hear of friends and neighbors
    getting similar visits?

    I can't possibly answer that question for you.

    An absence of noise on those lines (buried in the same soil with the
    same drainage properties and precipitation patterns)?

    Nor can I possibly answer that question either.

    I.e., whatever criteria are used, it obviously is designed to reject
    MOST sources of line noise. Pity the folks trapped in that burning
    building who fail to hit whatever design window is accepted (WHILE
    the copper is burning)

    Which is just what the atty., worried about a possible lawsuit, is
    worried about, and why they force the engineers to program the switch
    to recognize "stuff" that isn't perfectly to spec.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Bertrand Sindri on Sat Jun 8 14:42:34 2024
    On 6/8/2024 1:57 PM, Bertrand Sindri wrote:
    I.e., whatever criteria are used, it obviously is designed to reject
    MOST sources of line noise. Pity the folks trapped in that burning
    building who fail to hit whatever design window is accepted (WHILE
    the copper is burning)

    Which is just what the atty., worried about a possible lawsuit, is
    worried about, and why they force the engineers to program the switch
    to recognize "stuff" that isn't perfectly to spec.

    Remember, here, this is all covered by law that clearly defines the responsibilities of the provider. One could see the telco's lawyer arguing: "And, should we also detect two hookflashes, followed by a 3 minute delay and another four hookflashes, a 2 second delay and three more in rapid succession as the leading '9' -- and, not an elderly person slowly dialing 2 4 3..."

    Recognizing "outliers" isn't easy. I suspect the switch doesn't even look
    for a '9' followed by a '1' and another '1'. Rather, some "abnormal"
    line activity. Could a two-year-old playing with a phone happen to dial
    an emergency services number -- how is 6 2 1 1 1 not seen as 9 1 1?

    The switch likely can't store much state for each possible subscriber.
    So, it can't "learn" what to expect from a particular line: "Oh,
    that's Don's line and the insulation on his pair have obviously degraded
    to result in lots of noise on an otherwise functioning pair."

    Instead, it has to adopt a one-size-fits-all algorithm. But, this has to address legitimate 911 (dial pulsed) calls accepting the tolerances on
    how fast the dial can "return to home" (in the presence of a "fat finger")
    as well as all of these hypothesized attempts at POSSIBLY needing assistance and being inept in your dialing.

    <https://maker.pro/forums/threads/can-telephone-noise-dial-911.66494/> <https://support.google.com/googlepixelwatch/thread/205920957/911-call-while-i-was-sleeping?hl=en>
    <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/03/health/apple-watch-911-emergency-call.html>

    The downside of false positives is that of increased externalities; someone ELSE pays for the problem (potentially, adding bias to future emergency responses -- "boy who cried wolf").

    "In Grand County, home to a busy mountain called Winter Park, Sheriff
    Brett Schroetlin decided in late December to devote less attention to
    the crash-detection calls. Now if a 911 operator receives one from the
    slopes and no one is on the other end of the line, they know to ignore
    the call; no more referrals or follow-ups. None of the ghost calls so
    far have been real emergencies, Sheriff Schroetlin reasoned, and he
    couldn’t afford to waste limited resources."

    I put a weight on each "potential emergency" scenario that I detect.
    I will bother the occupant before I will bother a (remote) family
    member. The family member before a nearby neighbor. And, the neighbor
    before the police.

    But, I can do this because I have more information than a string of break/makes as well as intimate knowledge of the occupant and scene.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)