"Clearly there are benefits of SMS (short message service) outside emergency services," Australian Communications Authority (ACA) manager of communications Paul Slocum told ZDNet Australia. "Principally, I suppose what we're saying here is it's just not suitable for emergency services."
The ACA said it had followed guidance from the Emergency Services Advisory Committee in issuing a warning to consumers not to rely on SMS in time-critical, life threatening situations. Dialling 000, or 106 for communications-impaired users, was the only way to guarantee emergency services would be dispatched to the scene, ACA chairman Tony Shaw said.
"SMS is a 'store and forward' service. It is not a 'real time' service, like a voice call. There are just too many variables that can affect the delivery time of SMS messages," Shaw said.
Shaw pointed out the delay in delivery and no feedback about the success or failure of messages, as the main shortfalls of SMSing in emergency situations.
"Our concern is that consumers may assume that the 'message sent' icon means the emergency services have received the message. But this is only confirmation that the message has been sent to the SMS centre within the sender's network. Some carriers do offer confirmation that a message has been received, but this is not suitable in emergencies because it does not confirm any action by the recipient," Shaw said.
Shaw also said that the time taken in obtaining information such as the caller's location and the nature of the incident -may well be the difference between life and death".
What is really needed is real-time text messaging betweeen mobile phones and emergency services, either through GPRS or V.18 (TDD). Unfortunately both of these require new features in the handset.