Re: iPhone battery replacement

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

Joe Gwinn

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.

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.

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

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

Subscribe to a VOIP service?

Sylvia.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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

That instance obviously did not generate random patterns that matched the criteria the switch was looking for. That, or, they disable the

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.

I can't possibly answer that question for you.

Nor can I possibly answer that question either.

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.