 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / November 2005FCC needs to revisit cellular robustness
It appears that communication failures were one of the primary causes for poorly coordinated response to the recent flooding disasters. A solution would be for the FCC to impose some better reliability/robustness requirements on the cell phone system. The radio spectrum is finite and fundamentally belongs to everyone. While unfettered competition is good for development there should be some requirements regarding cellular communication robustness in the case of power grid loss. Government regulation for the general welfare is needed here. The FCC should place saving lives ahead of protecting eyes from "wardrobe failures". Dave PS the existing AMPS (analog) system likely made it through the whole Katrina episode. Unfortunately few have phones that'll do analog anymore. Maybe the FCC should require it? Perhaps some minimal text message capability would be practical when signal strength or bandwidth is limited? I doubt that any communications system would have made it. 1)the towers were blown down. 2)The electric distribution system was destroyed 3)The landline telephone system was destroyed. 4)The switching offices were probably in many cases under water. 5)There was NO way, in the days after katrina to recharge Cell telephone or radios. That takes Genererators and Gasoline, of which there was any. Even ham radio operators ran into this problem. The only way out of this problem would have been Solar cell rechargers which do exist, but they are expensive. Basically you took the gulf coast from Alabame to Louisana and destroyed all the infrastructure. Water, electric, phone, radio, sewage, roads, and who knows what else, was destroyed. As a ham radio operator, I can tell you that emergency radio communications is an ART, not a science. 1)It takes an lot of planning. 2)It requrires a lot of practice 3)It takes a lot of equipment to move into affected area to re establish communications. and in this situation, cell telphone, are not the answer. Chip > It appears that communication failures were one of the primary causes > for poorly coordinated response to the recent flooding disasters. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Perhaps some minimal text message capability would be practical when > signal strength or bandwidth is limited? >A solution would be for the FCC to impose some better >reliability/robustness requirements on the cell phone system. The radio >spectrum is finite and fundamentally belongs to everyone. If you're going to impose that on wireless operators lets impose it on the wireline carriers and insist that they have equipment to handle each and every phone that goes off hook in every area. Only problem with that is you'll have to have the government bail out every failed telephone company in the US since providing that kind of coverage will likely bankrupt them. And who do you actually believe is going to pay for this "robustness?" Here's a flash for you. The person who will pay for it is *you* when the companies tack on extra "emergency" fees and increase their rates. Nothing comes for free. Even if the spectrum "belongs to all of us" the wireless companies have *paid* to use that spectrum to deliver their product. The ones who have had the free ride are the TV broadcasters. - - >PS the existing AMPS (analog) system likely made it through the whole >Katrina episode. Unfortunately few have phones that'll do analog >anymore. Maybe the FCC should require it? You really do not know do you? What makes you think that AMPS analog made it through the storm any better than the digital technologies? If a tower is dark because its backup generators or batteries failed AMPS isn't going to work any better than the digital technologies. Where on earth you got the idea that somehow the older technology would be saved from what's needed to run a site e.g. power and not being submerged. Why should the FCC mandate that an outdated technology be resurected? - - >PS the existing AMPS (analog) system likely made it through the whole >Katrina episode. Unfortunately few have phones that'll do analog >anymore. Maybe the FCC should require it? "You really do not know do you?" Nope, but I'm willing to bet. If I'm not mistaken, AMPS has signifcantly greater coverage per tower than does typical digital services. My 3 watt bag phone has much greater area coverage than does my lower power gsm Samsung x427m. I believe this is in part due to greater area coverage of AMPS towers. "Why should the FCC mandate that an outdated technology be resurected? " If it is a cost effective way to increase coverage in disaster situations it should be considered. Dave > >PS the existing AMPS (analog) system likely made it through the whole > >Katrina episode. Unfortunately few have phones that'll do analog [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If it is a cost effective way to increase coverage in disaster > situations it should be considered. Why didn't you respond to the rest of the post, as it highlighted the problem with your mandate- no cellular technology will work when the towers have either been ripped out of the ground or their generators and switches are sitting in ten feet of water. The area of coverage becomes zero in these conditions, even for your beloved flintstone phone. >>PS the existing AMPS (analog) system likely made it through the whole >>Katrina episode. Unfortunately few have phones that'll do analog [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >If I'm not mistaken, AMPS has signifcantly greater coverage per tower >than does typical digital services. Not on an apples to apples basis. >My 3 watt bag phone has much greater area coverage than does my lower >power gsm Samsung x427m. I believe this is in part due to greater area >coverage of AMPS towers. It's due to the much greater power of your handset. >"Why should the FCC mandate that an outdated >technology be resurected? " > >If it is a cost effective way to increase coverage in disaster >situations it should be considered. It's not.  SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> >If I'm not mistaken, AMPS has signifcantly greater coverage per tower >than does typical digital services. You still don't get it. An AMPS analog site requires the same thing that a digital site does. It requires *power* and interconnection with the PSTN. If those do not exist either because auxhillary generators or batteries fail or get drained because they are not replenished it doesn't matter if it's AMPS, CDMA, GSM, TDMA or empty tin cans if a tower is dark it is of no use to anyone. >My 3 watt bag phone has much greater area coverage than does my lower >power gsm Samsung x427m. I believe this is in part due to greater area >coverage of AMPS towers. Well, BFD! If you don't have power and connection to the PSTN from the switch which also may be without power or backup or the switch may be under water you're no good then either are you? >"Why should the FCC mandate that an outdated >technology be resurected? " > >If it is a cost effective way to increase coverage in disaster >situations it should be considered. I'm still at a loss how a dark tower with no power can do anything whether it's AMPS analog or digital. - - <snip> >Why should the FCC mandate that an outdated >technology be resurected? >- - > > Because, it would create jobs in the telegraph industry, not to mention the time and effort it would take to make sure *everyone* know Morse Code. Some of the copper companies would also have economic benefit, especially if they ship on the steam powered locomotive. TH As a ham op who uses Morse code, it has the advantage of using very little power to go a long way. But, morse code is dead, for all practical matters, but not the very low power rtty dsp run modes. Emergency communications is an ART and takes careful planning. 1)You have to be able to communicate with a local infra structure. 1) Sattelite phones 2) Ham HF 3) ham vhf to a distant repeater using a yagi. 2)You must have power. 1)This means that you must have a generator with lots of gasoline. 2)have solar cell array to charge you batteries. Every year out ham club has a SET (Simulated Emergency Test), and we have to work arround problems like no land lines, phone lines, etc and it not EASY, and sometimes NOT possible. I guess what I am saying, cell phones and line lines are NOT going to work in these situations. Other test means have to be in place. Chip > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > TH > It appears that communication failures were one of the primary causes > for poorly coordinated response to the recent flooding disasters. Noooo, you're putting the chicken before the egg. The poorly coordinated response came fromt eh fact that the first responders made the mistake of relying on a civilian, NON-UTILITY service that offers no guarantee of robustness in extreme weather cnditions, like a category 5 storm. And what of the Public safety radio systems installed in the area? Those weren't working either, when they most certainly should have been. > A solution would be for the FCC to impose some better > reliability/robustness requirements on the cell phone system. If you're willing to pay the money for the upgrades, sure! And while we're at it, let's make similar demands of the wireleine companies. Right now a lot of the cell site are UP, they just don't have landline interconnect, which is something beyond most cell providers' control. > The FCC should place saving lives ahead of protecting eyes from > "wardrobe failures". They should focus on the use of tried and true methods, like open point to point portable radio communication, instead of relying on infrastructure. Katrina proved that ALL services that we think are reliable - landline, internet, cell phone, and public service SMR - are vulnerable. > Dave > > PS the existing AMPS (analog) system likely made it through the whole > Katrina episode. You've just proven that you have NO clue what you're talking about. SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. >> It appears that communication failures were one of the primary causes >> for poorly coordinated response to the recent flooding disasters. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > You've just proven that you have NO clue what you're talking about. I think Congress should require the FCC to mandate the widespread use of carrier pidgeons. I suspect it would also, like most others, be an unfunded mandate, requiring the carrier companies to tack on fees related to upgrading infrastructure (more cages with automatic battery-operated door openers/closers), improved feeding stations (recycled use of high-level cell towers reducing transit times aka 'power lunch'), environmental controls (poop and stray feather restrictions), inclement weather incentives (improving up times by using waterproof PostIt notes), relaxed spectrum controls (message routes are scattered willy-nilly), relaxed 911 response times (speaking a foreign language is one thing, reading it is quite another), no dress codes (pidgeons of all colors compete together), and lastly, dropped-call rates no longer measured (pidgeons often lose the little ankle capsules during sex). The upside of this would be only one pleasant ringtone - cooing. Well, okay, I think it's pleasant, but then again, I'm drunk, so I guess that's another feature I should mention. :) Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' <snip> > (improving up times by using waterproof PostIt notes), <snip> Actually, I would prefer *fade resistant* waterproof PostIt(R) notes. I have shares of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing. TH I understand that there's little hope without towers or power but I doubt that the system is as robust as is practical. I'm not asking for perfection; just a system that is more robust in the face of disaster. This is in the interest of the general public and may be contrary to the business interests of providers; that's why practical robustness should be required. > I understand that there's little hope without towers or power but I > doubt that the system is as robust as is practical. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be contrary to the business interests of providers; that's why > practical robustness should be required. The business of the general public isn't in the hands of the general public - it's in the hands of emergency response personnel - and they don't rely on the cellular network for the same reason the general public doesn't. Emergency response personnel have their own two-way communications network that is as robust as is practical - it's not perfect either, but it's still several orders of magnitude better than cellular. In Orleans parish, even that system was rendered unusable, but not because there were thousands of idiots clogging the system with their own attempts to save themselves. In times of disaster, the general public isn't expected to save themselves, they're expected to survive as best they can until professional help arrives. The bodies of those that were unable to survive will be collected after the survivors are rescued. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >I'm not asking for perfection; just a system that is more robust in the >face of disaster. This is in the interest of the general public and may >be contrary to the business interests of providers; that's why >practical robustness should be required. You don't have any answers though do you? You wave around this "practical robustness" term and you don't even have a clue what this "practical robustness" is. All you want the carriers to do is just spend their money. You're not even clued in that all this robustness isn't free and that you're the one who will pay for it through added fees and likely higher rates. - - > >I'm not asking for perfection; just a system that is more robust in the > >face of disaster. This is in the interest of the general public and may [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > isn't free and that you're the one who will pay for it through added > fees and likely higher rates. Of course it would cost money, and the subscriber base would pay. But do you really expect him to be able to tell the experts at the cellular companies exactly how it should be done? Surely it's their job to figure it out. With so many people becoming more and more dependent on cellular communication, it's a reasonable complaint. > > >I'm not asking for perfection; just a system that is more robust in the > > >face of disaster. This is in the interest of the general public and may [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > job to figure it out. With so many people becoming more and more > dependent on cellular communication, it's a reasonable complaint. What exactly is the complaint? That the infrastructure for cellular communication didn't survive the effects of class 4/5 hurricane? That AMPS would be the preferred method of communication? The 'complaint' is either very vague or very silly. True- AMPS phones can generally operate over a greater distance than CDMA/GSM/iDen phones. True- an AMPS network trying to move a large number of calls in a limited area would crash in a heartbeat (capacity is the downfall of AMPS) True- AMPS performs no better than CDMA/GSM/iDen when towers, switches and generators are under water (which is why the cellular networks went down in the hurricane area) If anybody can explain the advantage to an AMPS network given the three indisputable truths listed above, please feel free. And to the poster who claims amps to be so 'robust', see truth #2- that is not the definition of 'robust'. >>"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > claims amps to be so 'robust', see truth #2- that is not the definition of > 'robust'. Jumping in late here. I have a few more suggestions that could help when the site has suffered "minimal" damage. (Of course none of these help when the site's under water, the tower is down.) - backup generators at all sites to keep the sites on the air longer than whatever backup batteries they might have. - Extra capacity at all sites to cover extra heavy loads. Those are "relatively" easy to implement although, obviously, not free. A longer term and hideously more expensive one: - Standardizing on one technology, greatly increasing redundancy and reliability. As it is there's analog, TDMA, CDMA, iDen, GSM. Now if you're lucky you might have a phone that handles more than one of these. In many rural areas analog is the only game in or out of town. > Jumping in late here. I have a few more suggestions that could help when > the site has suffered "minimal" damage. (Of course none of these help > when the site's under water, the tower is down.) The 'minimally' damaged sites were up much quicker than most realize. Sprint was advertising that 75% of their Mississippi network was up and running just days after the hurricane left. Cingular and Verizon were in about the same condition. Landline did not even begin to approach these numbers- where is the real problem? > - backup generators at all sites to keep the sites on the air longer > than whatever backup batteries they might have. As you've already stated, no good when the generators are sitting in ten feet of water. This is what brought down most of the towers (at least the ones that were still standing). And many towers already have this equipment in place. How long would you expect those generators to run without being refueled? > - Extra capacity at all sites to cover extra heavy loads. Great idea- probably would have been more important to have extra capacity at the grocery and hardware stores, landline telephone companies and hospitals, yet this never seems to come up in these conversations. > Those are "relatively" easy to implement although, obviously, not free. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you're lucky you might have a phone that handles more than one of these. > In many rural areas analog is the only game in or out of town. Would have not done anybody any good, as none of these technologies showed superiority or durability over the others. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >numbers- where is the real problem? > Yeah, Verizon was down for weeks in my area after Hurricane Charlie last year. It had been up for a few days before going down with Frances, and it wasn't even up before Jeanne hit. I'm not sure how long after Jeanne before Verizon had their network up and running, because we told them we were no longer interested in wireline service. TH >- Extra capacity at all sites to cover extra heavy loads. Which makes as much sense as adding extra capacity to regular wireline offices *just* for emergencies. There's a good reason why wireline and wireless companies *don't* provide all that extra capacity. It's equipment that just sits around not making any money for the company during regular periods. If companies provided the level of equipment that is needed during a heavy calling period like during a disaster they'd have to increase their rates by 300% to cover the cost of maintaining and installing that equipment. Companies make allowances for normal day-to-day situations not once in ten year situations. >Those are "relatively" easy to implement although, obviously, not free. Obviously not free. Quite expensive actually. >A longer term and hideously more expensive one: >- Standardizing on one technology, greatly increasing redundancy and >reliability. As it is there's analog, TDMA, CDMA, iDen, GSM. And just how is standardizing on one technology going to make equipment work better? - - >>- Extra capacity at all sites to cover extra heavy loads. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > maintaining and installing that equipment. Companies make allowances > for normal day-to-day situations not once in ten year situations. Having extra capacity is no different than the standby generators "that just sits around not making any money for the company during regular periods". I seriously doubt that there isn't ANY extra capacity built in to the current systems, if only to provide during a bad traffic jam or to cover expected growth. >>Those are "relatively" easy to implement although, obviously, not free. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And just how is standardizing on one technology going to make > equipment work better? By possible making more capacity available in a "smaller" disaster. If company A's closest tower blows down but company B's doesn't I could use B's IF it's the same technology. And I'm really talking about less damaged areas. Obviously if everything within 20 miles is under water none of these suggestions would help. But they might have improved the situation on the fringe damage areas. Areas where sites were still standing but had no power, sites that were working but swamped with traffic, etc. Not all sites have generators or batteries. Only the ones that have room and are located to give an emergency level coverage. Generators do not any good under water or if the tower is down, or if the land lines are down. Even if companies a and b use the same technology, that does not mean hand sets from one will work (roam) on the other. If everything within one mile is underwater, could mean that your phone would not work. >>> - Extra capacity at all sites to cover extra heavy loads. >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Areas where sites were still standing but had no power, sites that were > working but swamped with traffic, etc. > > And just how is standardizing on one technology going to make > > equipment work better? > > By possible making more capacity available in a "smaller" disaster. If > company A's closest tower blows down but company B's doesn't I could use > B's IF it's the same technology. Smaller disasters already have a much quicker response and recovery time. > And I'm really talking about less damaged areas. Obviously if everything > within 20 miles is under water none of these suggestions would help. But > they might have improved the situation on the fringe damage areas. Most of the fringe areas are already back up and running and have been for some time. > Areas where sites were still standing but had no power, sites that were > working but swamped with traffic, etc. Even if all the carriers used the same technology, that would not have lessened the damage from the hurricane. And if your carrier's network is down, it would not necessarily mean your phone would work (roam). The analog only areas are small, few, far between and lowly populated. > A longer term and hideously more expensive one: > - Standardizing on one technology, greatly increasing redundancy and > reliability. As it is there's analog, TDMA, CDMA, iDen, GSM. Now if > you're lucky you might have a phone that handles more than one of these. > In many rural areas analog is the only game in or out of town. >Even if all the carriers used the same technology, that would not have >lessened the damage from the hurricane. And if your carrier's network >is down, it would not necessarily mean your phone would work (roam). >The analog only areas are small, few, far between and lowly populated. And I have yet to understand why analog AMPS would be better in an emergency situation that required *more* circuits to be available when analog can handle a fraction of what *any* digital standard can handle. - - >True- AMPS phones can generally operate over a greater distance than >CDMA/GSM/iDen phones. Both CMDA and GSM will work over great distances. In the case of GSM, what's needed is an extended range cell, or for even greater range, a "boomer" cell. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > >>True- AMPS phones can generally operate over a greater distance than >>CDMA/GSM/iDen phones. > > Both CMDA and GSM will work over great distances. Five miles is NOT a great distance for CDMA...Perhaps in Australia, but CDMA has only a 5 mile or so range in the U.S. Google Australia and CDMA and compare what U.S. CDMA can do. >>>True- AMPS phones can generally operate over a greater distance than >>>CDMA/GSM/iDen phones. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Google Australia and CDMA and compare what U.S. CDMA can do. U.S. CDMA works over distances much greater than 5 miles, on the order of 10-20 miles, depending on tower and terrain. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> MY HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > U.S. CDMA works over distances much greater than 5 miles, on the order of > 10-20 miles, depending on tower and terrain. Ummm...you haven't engineered much CDMA, have you? Past 5 miles the timing has too much latency and it simply won't work. The U.S. CDMA carries intentionally set the timing limit. Ever hear of "pilot pollution"? Didn't think so. >> U.S. CDMA works over distances much greater than 5 miles, on the order of >> 10-20 miles, depending on tower and terrain. > >Ummm...you haven't engineered much CDMA, have you? Ummm...no, but I've actually done quite a bit of testing, in addition to both specs and coverage maps. >Past 5 miles the timing has too much latency and it simply won't work. >The U.S. CDMA carries intentionally set the timing limit. Sure you're not thinking of TDMA? But even TDMA has range well in excess of 5 miles -- standard GSM has a range of 35 km, or more than 20 miles, and Extended Range GSM is capable of much more. >Ever hear of "pilot pollution"? Didn't think so. Ever hear of rural and coastal areas? Apparently not. Pilot pollution is an issue in dense area, not sparse areas. 25 km, or a little over 15 miles, is considered nominal range for CDMA *when* such range is needed, as in the case of relatively flat rural and coastal areas. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Ummm...no, but I've actually done quite a bit of testing, in addition to both > specs and coverage maps. Ok, so you're not a wireless professional then, just a user. > Sure you're not thinking of TDMA? But even TDMA has range well in excess of > 5 miles -- standard GSM has a range of 35 km, or more than 20 miles, and > Extended Range GSM is capable of much more. No, not thinking of TDMA. TDMA is great, have made 30 mile hops with it. >>Ever hear of "pilot pollution"? Didn't think so. > > Ever hear of rural and coastal areas? Apparently not. Pilot pollution is an > issue in dense area, not sparse areas. Oh kayyyyyyyy.....and you got the $50,000 worth of test equpiment in your van to verify this? "Apparently not" Opps...forgot, you're not a wireless professional then, just a user. > 25 km, or a little over 15 miles, is considered nominal range for CDMA *when* > such range is needed, as in the case of relatively flat rural and coastal > areas. Normal? For who???????? >> Ummm...no, but I've actually done quite a bit of testing, in addition to both >> specs and coverage maps. > >Ok, so you're not a wireless professional then, just a user. Those aren't mutually exclusive. >>>Ever hear of "pilot pollution"? Didn't think so. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >your van to verify this? "Apparently not" Opps...forgot, you're not a >wireless professional then, just a user. No need for all that -- see below. >> 25 km, or a little over 15 miles, is considered nominal range for CDMA *when* >> such range is needed, as in the case of relatively flat rural and coastal >> areas. > >Normal? For who???????? Few weeks ago I was over 12 NM from land (as the Navigator I had both chart and triple GPS confirmation of that) on a racing sailboat, and was able to make CDMA digital (as well as GSM) calls. Floating towers?! :) SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >Of course it would cost money, and the subscriber base would pay. >But do you really expect him to be able to tell the experts at the >cellular companies exactly how it should be done? Surely it's their >job to figure it out. With so many people becoming more and more >dependent on cellular communication, it's a reasonable complaint. Well, good on ya. You complain. I have a sane expectation of what will work when there's a disaster and everyone goes to use the service. When you can figure out how to make all the utilities work during a major disaster when the central office switch is under thirty feet of water and the auxhillary power doesn't work and the batteries are dead in a few hours. It's always so easy being an armchair quarterback and saying that you know it could be done better. - - Isn't it true that the French Quarter didn't flood? Isn't it true that network management software can control and priortize access? I'm not expecting or asking for miracles, only for better disaster planning, mandated by regulation if necessary. Let's see the cost/benefit numbers then decide. Regarding AMPS; I don't know if a tower within 50 km or so of New Orleans survived; if so it'd have been useful for a small number of callers. Isn't it true that small signal, low bit rate data transmission technology is well developed and can be used for short text messages? >Regarding AMPS; I don't know if a tower within 50 km or so of New >Orleans survived; if so it'd have been useful for a small number of >callers. Make that a *very* small number of callers. Digital was developed for several reasons among them the ability to have *capacity* where analog did not have much capacity at all. It's interesting "funny" that your "solution" has not been suggested by anyone in the know. I'm just curious how you know so much about emergency telecommunications management. - - > Isn't it true that the French Quarter didn't flood? Correct, but isn't it also true that the French Quarter sustained wind damage with winds high enough to snap most cellular towers? > Isn't it true that network management software can control and > priortize access? Which does not help in providing adequate capacity to handle the calls. > I'm not expecting or asking for miracles, only for better disaster > planning, mandated by regulation if necessary. Let's see the > cost/benefit numbers then decide. OK- enough of your wish list- you tell us how cellular service could have been provided in New Orleans 24 hours after the hurricane left. Specifics, not generalities. You keep talking in circles and act like you have the answer, yet avoid dealing with all of the obtacles being placed in the way of your grand plan by the laws of physics, weather and telecommunications. > Regarding AMPS; I don't know if a tower within 50 km or so of New > Orleans survived; if so it'd have been useful for a small number of > callers. And who gets to choose who the lucky ones would be? > Isn't it true that small signal, low bit rate data transmission > technology is well developed and can be used for short text messages? Only if the infrastructure exists to deliver it. If landline is down (and it was and still is in many places where cellular is up) nothing moves along the network. You do understand the absolute dependence on landline, don't you? >> Isn't it true that the French Quarter didn't flood? > >Correct, but isn't it also true that the French Quarter sustained wind >damage with winds high enough to snap most cellular towers? But not all, especially those inside structures. >> Isn't it true that network management software can control and >> priortize access? > >Which does not help in providing adequate capacity to handle the calls. Cellular systems do have priority systems. Whether or not capacity is an issue depends on the amount of priority traffic, not total traffic. >> I'm not expecting or asking for miracles, only for better disaster >> planning, mandated by regulation if necessary. Let's see the >> cost/benefit numbers then decide. I agree with you. Cellular has become so important that I think it's time for higher levels of emergency service to be mandated. >OK- enough of your wish list- you tell us how cellular service could have >been provided in New Orleans 24 hours after the hurricane left. Specifics, >not generalities. ... A limited number of hardened sites with standby generators and backup satellite links. Limit regular subscribers to text messages when the system is at capacity. >> Regarding AMPS; I don't know if a tower within 50 km or so of New >> Orleans survived; if so it'd have been useful for a small number of >> callers. > >And who gets to choose who the lucky ones would be? Network priority. >> Isn't it true that small signal, low bit rate data transmission >> technology is well developed and can be used for short text messages? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the network. You do understand the absolute dependence on landline, don't >you? Satellite is a ready alternative. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But not all, especially those inside structures. And how many sites in the FQ were inside? Any? And how many of those inside cells had full access to the outside world? > >> Isn't it true that network management software can control and > >> priortize access? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I agree with you. Cellular has become so important that I think it's time for > higher levels of emergency service to be mandated. They operate under the same guidelines as landline and show much quicker recovery rates. Your focus is misguided, as usual. > >OK- enough of your wish list- you tell us how cellular service could have > >been provided in New Orleans 24 hours after the hurricane left. Specifics, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > satellite links. Limit regular subscribers to text messages when the system > is at capacity. So, more regulation and operational requirements than landline? Such a naive view. > >> Regarding AMPS; I don't know if a tower within 50 km or so of New > >> Orleans survived; if so it'd have been useful for a small number of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Network priority. Wrong- the software would only set the priority- someone predetermines your place in line. > >> Isn't it true that small signal, low bit rate data transmission > >> technology is well developed and can be used for short text messages? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Satellite is a ready alternative. >> In <PMSdnf7pdaKkhrfeRVn-tw@adelphia.com> on Thu, 15 Sep 2005 >19:10:26 -0600, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >And how many sites in the FQ were inside? Any? And how many of those >inside cells had full access to the outside world? I don't know. Do you? Regardless, it is quite possible to have coverage with a limited number of "hardened" sites. >> I agree with you. Cellular has become so important that I think it's time for >> higher levels of emergency service to be mandated. > >They operate under the same guidelines as landline Cellular and landline are regulated differently. >and show much quicker recovery rates. Sometimes yes; sometimes no. >Your focus is misguided, as usual. Ad hominem. Grow up. >> A limited number of hardened sites with standby generators and backup >> satellite links. Limit regular subscribers to text messages when the system >> is at capacity. > >So, more regulation and operational requirements than landline? Similar, actually. Regardless, as I wrote, Cellular has become so important that I think it's time for higher levels of emergency service to be mandated. >Such a >naive view. Ad hominem. Grow up. >> >And who gets to choose who the lucky ones would be? >> >> Network priority. > >Wrong- the software would only set the priority- someone predetermines your >place in line. Here's how Wireless Priority Service (WPS) actually works: When trying to make a call in times of emergency or natural disaster, national security and emergency preparedness users will have the ability to gain priority access to the next available cellular channel to place their call. This service will greatly enhance their ability to complete wireless calls during critical times and communicate vital decisions and reports during emergency situations. WPS is available only to designated leadership at all government levels, national security, emergency responders, and private sector critical infrastructure leaders and decision makers, as approved by Federal Communications Commission Rules and Requirements and the NCS. Further, WPS has been designed to have negligible impact on regular cellular users, providing priority access to vital decision makers without restricting the publics ability to gain access to those same networks. More information on WPS is available at http://wps.ncs.gov/ In addition, carriers can and do increase capacity of operational infrastructure in emergencies by: * Switching to half-rate coding, which increases capacity at the expense of voice quality, and * Restricting data traffic. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I don't know. Do you? Regardless, it is quite possible to have coverage with > a limited number of "hardened" sites. Then your original statement, "But not all, especially those inside structures" is not based in fact. > >> I agree with you. Cellular has become so important that I think it's time for > >> higher levels of emergency service to be mandated. > > > >They operate under the same guidelines as landline > > Cellular and landline are regulated differently. Yes they are- your point? Maybe you missed the FCC public notices issued after the hurricane, putting many more restrictions on cellular in dealing with their affected customers. It would appear that there is no difference in time of need. Of course, you'll disagree, as you refuse to be proven wrong. > >and show much quicker recovery rates. > > Sometimes yes; sometimes no. Examples of landline coming up quicker? > >Your focus is misguided, as usual. > > Ad hominem. Grow up. Your repeated use of this phrase in your post shows that maybe I'm not the one needing to grow up. > >> A limited number of hardened sites with standby generators and backup > >> satellite links. Limit regular subscribers to text messages when the system [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Similar, actually. Regardless, as I wrote, Cellular has become so important > that I think it's time for higher levels of emergency service to be mandated. Computers have become much more important than cell phones- maybe the cellcos should be regulated like the ISP's. Oh, wait- they aren't regulated, are they? > >Such a > >naive view. > > Ad hominem. Grow up. See- like a kid sticking out his tongue. >> >And how many sites in the FQ were inside? Any? And how many of those >> >inside cells had full access to the outside world? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Then your original statement, "But not all, especially those inside >structures" is not based in fact. At least as much fact as your statements. ;) >> >They operate under the same guidelines as landline >> >> Cellular and landline are regulated differently. > >Yes they are- your point? That your statement was incorrect. >Maybe you missed the FCC public notices issued >after the hurricane, putting many more restrictions on cellular in dealing >with their affected customers. It would appear that there is no difference >in time of need. Of course, you'll disagree, as you refuse to be proven >wrong. I will indeed disagree, because you are misinformed. >> >and show much quicker recovery rates. >> >> Sometimes yes; sometimes no. > >Examples of landline coming up quicker? Landline frequently stays up in emergencies. >> >Your focus is misguided, as usual. >> >> Ad hominem. Grow up. > >Your repeated use of this phrase in your post shows that maybe I'm not the >one needing to grow up. Neener, neener? How childish. No response on Wireless Priority Service, which says it all. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > At least as much fact as your statements. ;) As I have direct knowledge, that would be incorrect......again. > >> >They operate under the same guidelines as landline > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I will indeed disagree, because you are misinformed. Please enlighten me, although that will require a direct answer. > >> >and show much quicker recovery rates. > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Landline frequently stays up in emergencies. Shall I define the word "examples" for you- seems like an easy word for such a self-professed smart guy. > >> >Your focus is misguided, as usual. > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No response on Wireless Priority Service, which says it all. No meaningful response to anything from you, which is so typical. I guess you got what you give. >As I have direct knowledge, that would be incorrect......again. Except that you clearly don't. >Please enlighten me, although that will require a direct answer. Not really, since you don't seem able to be enlightened. >> Landline frequently stays up in emergencies. > >Shall I define the word "examples" for you- seems like an easy word for such >a self-professed smart guy. Knock yourself out. But wait ... you've not had any examples of your own, so ... >> No response on Wireless Priority Service, which says it all. > >No meaningful response to anything from you, which is so typical. I guess >you got what you give. Not even a good try. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > > >As I have direct knowledge, that would be incorrect......again. > > Except that you clearly don't. Then go ahead and cite my credentials and knowledge base, as that is the only way you make such a statement. However, I do realize this task is far above both your knowledge of the subject and ability as a Usenet poster. > >Please enlighten me, although that will require a direct answer. > > Not really, since you don't seem able to be enlightened. So, when asked for details, you are unable to provide them. I seem to be the last one here to have a problem with enlightenment. > >> Landline frequently stays up in emergencies. > > > >Shall I define the word "examples" for you- seems like an easy word for such > >a self-professed smart guy. > > Knock yourself out. But wait ... you've not had any examples of your own, so I was not asked for any, and will be glad to provide such once you have given examples of landline coming up before cellular in this type of situation. > ... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not even a good try. Try at what? I simply stated the truth. >> In <5uadnUWCPc2AtLPeRVn-tQ@adelphia.com> on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 >20:58:47 -0600, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Then go ahead and cite my credentials and knowledge base, as that is the >only way you make such a statement. ... On the contrary -- your lack of knowledge is evident from the content of your posts. >> >Please enlighten me, although that will require a direct answer. >> >> Not really, since you don't seem able to be enlightened. > >So, when asked for details, you are unable to provide them. ... I've provided sufficient details. You just don't like them. >> >Shall I define the word "examples" for you- seems like an easy word for such >> >a self-professed smart guy. >> >> Knock yourself out. But wait ... you've not had any examples of your own, so > >I was not asked for any, You've made several unsupported claims. One wonders if you have anything to back them up. >and will be glad to provide such once you have >given examples of landline coming up before cellular in this type of >situation. I didn't think so. >> >> No response on Wireless Priority Service, which says it all. >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Try at what? I simply stated the truth. You were actually confirming your lack of knowledge of WPS, even now, when you've had ample opportunity to check the link I provided and/or search on your own. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > >Then go ahead and cite my credentials and knowledge base, as that is the > >only way you make such a statement. ... > > On the contrary -- your lack of knowledge is evident from the content of your > posts. Wow- a post from Navas without substance- what a shock. > >So, when asked for details, you are unable to provide them. ... > > I've provided sufficient details. You just don't like them. You've provided no details- you are incapable of doing so. Although I do notice that your 'opinion' is frequently cited in your posts- your uniformed opinion is of no worth here. > >I was not asked for any, > > You've made several unsupported claims. One wonders if you have anything to > back them up. I do, and will be more than happy to share once you have backed up your own unsupported and false claims (many of which are in this thread). > >and will be glad to provide such once you have > >given examples of landline coming up before cellular in this type of > >situation. > > I didn't think so. That's the problem- you don't think. You only spout your uniformed opinion and take great offense when it is shown to be incorrect. In fact, very little of what you post is based in fact and most of it is nothing more than your little attempt at Usenet humor. It falls far short of entertaining. I see in another thread you are now second guessing MBA's. So, that would make you a self-professed expert in: Accounting Law Music Copyrights Cellular technology Computer science Marketing I'm sure I missed a few, but one of the regulars will be sure to add to the list. > >> >> No response on Wireless Priority Service, which says it all. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you've had ample opportunity to check the link I provided and/or search on > your own. I took the Navas approach- never directly answer the post- just act like a moron. From your response, I must have perfected the impression. >[SNIP content-free ad hominem] Since you had nothing of substance to say, I have no response, thus giving you the last word you so clearly crave. "Move along, folks, nothing more to see here." ;) SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > Limit regular subscribers to text messages when the system is at > capacity. This brings to mind a different, but related question. If text messages take up less resources, why do cellular provides charge extra for less? Cingular charges 10cents both ways. Is it because they can or is there a real difference in cost of voice versus text for the cellular provider? SignatureRegards, Ben > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I think they do it to get us used to paying a huge premium for data, knowing eventually a lot of businesses will need and, and a lot of people will want it. I still don't send SMS for that reason, but I receive them free, so I have all kinds of news blurbs coming to the phone. TH <snip> > This brings to mind a different, but related question. If text > messages take up less resources, why do cellular provides charge > extra for less? Cingular charges 10cents both ways. Is it because > they can or is there a real difference in cost of voice versus > text for the cellular provider? It's because they can. Text messages use almost no bandwidth. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.