I don't understand the context of your statement. You mean they say in NYC they don't answer 911 calls after 10PM? I don't know the story, but I suspect perhaps the call was routed to a business office instead of an emergency line where such calls wouldn't be answered after hours.
That is a good question. But we are speaking of two separate issues: (1) what exists now and how we consumers are best to deal with it and (2) what we'd like to exist.
As to (1) -- what exists now: public safety dispatching has become more centralized, covering a wider area and multiple jurisdictions. This is in part due to making 911 service available in suburban areas. The modern 911 services lock onto your line, provide your number, and access a database showing your address and other information. The problem is that VOIP, being a "floating" kind of service, doesn't necessarily input into these databases (does it charge for this as regular phones do -- we pay a "911 surcharge" of $1/month?)
You seem to be upset than the existing 911 infrastructure doesn't support newcomer VOIP. As the newcomer, shouldn't VOIP have the obligation to make itself support the existing infrastructure and pay for the costs thereof?
For 2 -- in an ideal world each local town would have on duty a 24/7 dispatcher even though overnight they'd handle very few calls. But even this has limitations because the central dispatch knows where all police/fire/rescue units are and their availability and in case of a big problem, neighboring units are immediately dispatched. There's no need to relay phone calls from one jurisdiction to another. We had an unexpected bad flood and the response was quick and efficient.
There are always tradeoffs between local specialized service and reginal mass-market service. Each has pros and cons.
Because in the last two decades considerable infrastructure has been invested in an E911 structure based on wireline service. Suddenly this new technology comes along and they want everyone to conform to it. Why can't the new technology confirm to the existing? It's not like E911 has been a secret. The govt and telephone subscribers have foot the bill for these enhancements. Why should some newcomer get a free ride?
The cable TV industry grew up by laying its own cable at its own expense and building its own receiver buildings. Then they upgraded on their own replacing with coaxial with fibre-optic and now they're free to do as they wish. But if they wish to mix in with existing networks, they have to conform to existing networks. Part of that conformity requirement is E911 service.
In other words, suppose we invent a cheap and easy to fly helicopter. Now we're upset that supermarkets and housing developments don't have landing platforms on their roofs to accomodate us.
In big cities you dialed zero and the operator gave you the police dept. In rural areas it was rather cumbersome and took extra time. Don't forget, not too long ago suburbanites had to know the specific numbers for fire/police/rescue for their town. In rural areas, these changed years since you called the home of the police or fire chief (and the phone books of rural areas said this). Phone CO service boundaries and town boundaries do not always mesh in suburban areas.
Having that "encyclopedic knowledge" of a wide suburban region is not so easy. Unlike a city with its grid streets, a suburban county has much more land area and crazy patchwork developments with overlapping names and towns and jurisdictions.
The police officials years back decided that computerized reference would be superior. If someone wasn't able to talk or a call got cut off, they could still send help which they couldn't before. They supposedly can send help faster. They supposedly have up-to-date information about new construction or changed situations.
Again, like it or not, this is the present system, and it's up to the VOIP carriers to make it work for them, not for the existing system to assume costs to make it work for VOIP.