NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future

John Navas wrote:

>>>There have been a number of notable cases where landlines went out, and
>>>cellular was the only phone service available.
>>>
>>>Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>
>
>>Doubt that, unless you have a government sat phone.
>
> Because ... ?

Because the government contracts with Iridium stipulate that in an
emergency, they have priority when capacity is at critical levels. In
an emergency, you can bet capacity will be strained, and your public,
low-priority call is unlikely to go through when the network must choose
between that call and the call of an authorized emergency worker.

>
>>If you want to
>>get right down to it, the most reliable form of communication, in an
>>emergency (tornado, hurricane, earthquake) is longwave, shortwave, and
>>amateur radio phone (voice), CW (morse code), RTTY or packet. ...


> At a regional level perhaps, but I wouldn't want to rely on it at an
> individual level.

Well then, you enjoy your satellite phone, and let's hope you never have
to use it. Until prices come down (IF they ever go down), the masses
are probably going to stick to more terrestrial means.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

---

› See More: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future

In article <[email protected]>,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > And if you want a reliable dsl broadband connection you need a local
> > landline also. I got tired of weekly outages with Roadrunner.
>
> Actually, broadband reliability isn't as predictable as the landline
> phone system. Where I live, Verizon DSL isn't so reliable, and I jumped
> to Comcast after getting the same frequency of outages with Verizon as
> you cite with Roadrunner.

Neither phone lines nor TV Cable were designed for broadband, so in
large part you need a staff available 24/7 to cycle power on glitched
routers when necessary. Any system dsl or cable may be problematic if
the company overseeing things merely regards it as a piece of cash flow
not to be bothered with. However that thought process seems to be the
norm with cable systems. You're not a customer, you're a piece of cash
flow.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:05:55
-0500, Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>>>>Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>>>
>>>Not a viable alternative for most of us.
>>
>> 1. Why not?
>
>Not all of us make enough income to justify a $125 per month charge for
>75 minutes or airtime, and $1.68 per minute airtime fee to connect to
>the PSTN. ...

It's actually quite a bit cheaper than that.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:08:58
-0500, Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

>>>>Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>>
>>>Doubt that, unless you have a government sat phone.
>>
>> Because ... ?
>
>Because the government contracts with Iridium stipulate that in an
>emergency, they have priority when capacity is at critical levels. In
>an emergency, you can bet capacity will be strained, and your public,
>low-priority call is unlikely to go through when the network must choose
>between that call and the call of an authorized emergency worker.

1. I don't think that necessarily follows.

2. The government can preempt all forms of public communication in an
emergency.

>>>If you want to
>>>get right down to it, the most reliable form of communication, in an
>>>emergency (tornado, hurricane, earthquake) is longwave, shortwave, and
>>>amateur radio phone (voice), CW (morse code), RTTY or packet. ...
>
>> At a regional level perhaps, but I wouldn't want to rely on it at an
>> individual level.
>
>Well then, you enjoy your satellite phone,

I'm far from alone -- satellite phones are increasingly popular with
long-distance mariners.

>and let's hope you never have
>to use it.

I'm not worried -- it's quite reliable.

>Until prices come down (IF they ever go down), the masses
>are probably going to stick to more terrestrial means.

Prices have come down.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

> >One thing more and more people are unaware of or are ignoring - wireless
> >doesn't live under the same statutory umbrella as wireline - especially
> >where emergency dialing is concerned. Where wireline exists, the
> >provider is obligated to continue service regardless of the business
> >climate. Wireless has no such obligation. If the wireless provider
> >wants to move a cell site to maximize profit, it gets moved - they have
> >no obligation to consider who may be depending on the one cell site for
> >911 service. If a cell site is torn away by tragedy, and it takes a
> >month to replace it, the masses will wait. ...
>
> True, but that's rare and unlikely, especially in an urban area. OTOH,
all
> wireless carriers are required to provide 911 service even to unactivated
> handsets. Overall I don't think lack of regulation is a significant issue
as
> compared to other ways that service may be interrupted.


There is a couple of misnomers at play here:

There are multiple levels of access to wireless access in case of emergency.
These are set with the local authorities and the carriers. In case of an
emergency, the appropriate level emergency command can in fact disable and
prioritize access to 911 as well as regular calls in an approrpiate
emergency. The type and weigt of situation is pre formatted and only lines
properly encoded in the LERG for the local calling area can and will
connect... even to 911...

This originated several years ago when an airliner crashed (I forget exact
date and location) fairly close to a major highway. When the authorities
started responding, various level responders and emergncey managemnt
officals who would not normally have access to radios, found they could not
be contacted or use their govenrment handsets, because for in excess of two
hours (even after local radio and TV coverage started) folsk passing by the
scene on the major highway were calling 911 and "reporting" the crash (scene
was just out of sight enough passers by could not see emergency vehicles and
crews already on scene) which overloaded the sites.

With appropriate request, the sites in an area can be selectively "locked
out" except for the authorized users... with the electronic id identifing
the handset and matching it agaisnt the LERG database... if you dont have
approrpiate access class on teh site so locked out, you will get a error
message even if you are calling 911...

The federal law mandating access to 911 is not automatic. The handset must
have been activated at some point. A brand new handset, that has never
registered on any system anywhere, will not access 911. The 2 year old
handset that you used ti use, or bought at a yard sale because someone
upgraded, yes... that handset MUST allow access to 911 on any appropriate
system compatible (ie. if is CDMA, it wont and isnt required to access 911
on a GSM network etc) within teh possible restrictions imposed by the "lock
out" discussed previous...

"Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Jack Zwick wrote:
>>
>> And if you want a reliable dsl broadband connection you need a local
>> landline also. I got tired of weekly outages with Roadrunner.
>
> Actually, broadband reliability isn't as predictable as the landline
> phone system. Where I live, Verizon DSL isn't so reliable, and I jumped
> to Comcast after getting the same frequency of outages with Verizon as
> you cite with Roadrunner.

My SBC DSL has been extremely reliable since I signed up 14 months ago.

--
John Richards

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <ZtYjd.3357$%[email protected]> on Tue, 09 Nov 2004
> 05:22:01 GMT, "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>>
>>Not a viable alternative for most of us.
>
> 1. Why not?

Too expensive for the average person.

--
John Richards

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:04:07 -0500, "It is only me"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The federal law mandating access to 911 is not automatic. The handset must
>have been activated at some point. A brand new handset, that has never
>registered on any system anywhere, will not access 911.

This is out and out bull****. All handsets can access 911. It does
not matter if it ever has been activated. GSM handsets for one do not
get activated at all ever.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:04:07 -0500, "It is only me"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The federal law mandating access to 911 is not automatic. The handset
must
> >have been activated at some point. A brand new handset, that has never
> >registered on any system anywhere, will not access 911.
>
> This is out and out bull****. All handsets can access 911. It does
> not matter if it ever has been activated. GSM handsets for one do not
> get activated at all ever.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You are mistaken...

And GSM handsets DO get "activated"... There are still information that
exchanges and is recognized by the systems...

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 10 Nov 2004
06:08:57 GMT, "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <ZtYjd.3357$%[email protected]> on Tue, 09 Nov 2004
>> 05:22:01 GMT, "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>>>
>>>Not a viable alternative for most of us.
>>
>> 1. Why not?
>
>Too expensive for the average person.

In real terms it's about the same as early cellular.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:33:19 -0500, "It is
only me" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:04:07 -0500, "It is only me"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >The federal law mandating access to 911 is not automatic. The handset must
>> >have been activated at some point. A brand new handset, that has never
>> >registered on any system anywhere, will not access 911.
>>
>> This is out and out bull****. All handsets can access 911. It does
>> not matter if it ever has been activated. GSM handsets for one do not
>> get activated at all ever.
>
>You are mistaken...
>
>And GSM handsets DO get "activated"... There are still information that
>exchanges and is recognized by the systems...

Joseph is correct: What gets activated in GSM is the SIM, not the handset,
and even without a SIM, GSM handsets can still be used to call 911 without
ever having had any sort of activation.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:33:19 -0500, "It is only me"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:04:07 -0500, "It is only me"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >The federal law mandating access to 911 is not automatic. The handset
>must
>> >have been activated at some point. A brand new handset, that has never
>> >registered on any system anywhere, will not access 911.
>>
>> This is out and out bull****. All handsets can access 911. It does
>> not matter if it ever has been activated. GSM handsets for one do not
>> get activated at all ever.
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>You are mistaken...
>
>And GSM handsets DO get "activated"... There are still information that
>exchanges and is recognized by the systems...

Bull. GSM handsets *never* get activated. The SIM gets updated with
information, but the handset can most certainly make emergency calls
at least in North America per the regulations of the FCC and CRTC.
There's absolutely *no* information that a network uses to *activate*
a GSM phone. I'm betting that you cannot show documentatation that it
is required.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

John Navas wrote:

>>Because the government contracts with Iridium stipulate that in an
>>emergency, they have priority when capacity is at critical levels. In
>>an emergency, you can bet capacity will be strained, and your public,
>>low-priority call is unlikely to go through when the network must choose
>>between that call and the call of an authorized emergency worker.
>
>
> 1. I don't think that necessarily follows.

> 2. The government can preempt all forms of public communication in an
> emergency.

The two statements you just made are mutually exclusive. So which is it?

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

John Navas wrote:

>>>>>Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>>>>
>>>>Not a viable alternative for most of us.
>>>
>>>1. Why not?
>>
>>Not all of us make enough income to justify a $125 per month charge for
>>75 minutes or airtime, and $1.68 per minute airtime fee to connect to
>>the PSTN. ...
>
>
> It's actually quite a bit cheaper than that.


The vendors I've spoken with disagree. Do you sell Iridium service?
List your rates. Let's see how reasonable they really are.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

John Navas wrote:

>>>1. Why not?
>>
>>Too expensive for the average person.
>
>
> In real terms it's about the same as early cellular.

Early cellular was in fact too expensive for the average person. The
subscriber numbers increased when prices came down.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.