If you believe it, offer up all your money to cover the cost of all 911 services and life saving tools. Then, the companies can provide them free of charge since you ate the cost.
Most will probably hold back some or all of that money. They'll make it someone else's problem. If not, they'll limit how much they eat the cost of saving others' lives. Their justification will be to put the money into their own needs or pursuing more of something. Which is what the companies do when they don't eat the cost.
If it's right for most people to charge to cover their costs (or ignore other people's problems entirely), then it shouod be right for the companies, too. If they must be selfless at a huge loss, then so must any who demand they do thay.
To individuals, a life seems priceless. But to anyone facing resource constraints, tradeoffs are inevitable. Welcome to the quagmire where moral philosophy meets bean counting.
This should be such an infrequent occurrence that the cost should be negligible. Surely their $10/month plan has enough margin that this can be covered?
There is likely a cost to the infrastructure necessary to enable calling 911 that scales with the number of users not the number of 911 calls. Where I'm at, there is a 75 cent per month fee added to phone plans to cover the costs of access to 911. If most people are on the free plan, the margin from the few paying customers won't cover it.
Every cellphone without a valid service plan is still required to be able to call 911 in most places of the world, including the US, and carriers eat the costs. It should be obvious why.
Frankly it's weird they're making a clone of a classic touch tone corded phone and somehow get around this. Especially for a kids product when we teach kids to call 911 in an emergency.
Donate the cash? To a business? … So, you mean, paying someone else's profit margin, while they hold lives hostage? Immanuel Kant says you don't negotiate with terrorists.
