FCC 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?

---

› See More: FCC needs to revisit cellular robustness

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




[email protected] wrote:
> 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?
>

>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

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >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.


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.

[email protected] wrote:
> 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.


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

Isaiah Beard wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>


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.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

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

In <[email protected]> on 13 Sep 2005
17:22:41 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>>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.

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.

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

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.

[email protected] wrote:
> 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.
>


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.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On 14 Sep 2005 05:40:08 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >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.
>
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.

"L David Matheny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > On 14 Sep 2005 05:40:08 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > >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.
> >
> 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.
>
>

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'.

Scott wrote:
> "L David Matheny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>>On 14 Sep 2005 05:40:08 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>
> 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'.

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.

"WhoIsIt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> 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.
>
> 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.

Would have not done anybody any good, as none of these technologies showed
superiority or durability over the others.

Joseph wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:44:29 -0700, WhoIsIt <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>- 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.

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.
>
>
> 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?
>

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.

<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