NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future

In article <[email protected]>, spamfilter0
@navasgroup.com says...
> 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.
>

You gotta be joking. Everything I've ever read from someone that
actually USED a satellite phone was that it was extrememly picky--had to
be totally clear skys with no trees or anything and then they had to
walk around to get the best antenna angle. Most STORMS include heavy
rain and/or hail--the sat phone will get squat during that.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

---

› See More: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 08 Nov 2004
23:54:01 GMT, Jud Hardcastle <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, spamfilter0
>@navasgroup.com says...

>> Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>
>You gotta be joking. Everything I've ever read from someone that
>actually USED a satellite phone was that it was extrememly picky--had to
>be totally clear skys with no trees or anything and then they had to
>walk around to get the best antenna angle. Most STORMS include heavy
>rain and/or hail--the sat phone will get squat during that.

Inmarsat has excellent all-weather reliability, which is why it has become the
standard for marine communication. Iridium is quite good too, especially
given a current model handset. Both of course need an unobstructed view of
the sky. I've used both, and given an unobstructed view of the sky, have
never had to walk around, worry about antenna angle, or have a problem in a
storm.

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

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Mon, 08 Nov 2004
>23:54:01 GMT, Jud Hardcastle <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, spamfilter0
>>@navasgroup.com says...
>
>>> Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>>
>>You gotta be joking. Everything I've ever read from someone that
>>actually USED a satellite phone was that it was extrememly picky--had to
>>be totally clear skys with no trees or anything and then they had to
>>walk around to get the best antenna angle. Most STORMS include heavy
>>rain and/or hail--the sat phone will get squat during that.
>
>Inmarsat has excellent all-weather reliability, which is why it has become the
>standard for marine communication. Iridium is quite good too, especially
>given a current model handset. Both of course need an unobstructed view of
>the sky. I've used both, and given an unobstructed view of the sky, have
>never had to walk around, worry about antenna angle, or have a problem in a
>storm.

Well, the hobby of ham radio does a wonderful job of breaking through when
most everything else fails. Simple technology, cheap, and technical
know-how from licensed users.

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

Scott, ham radio callsign: wy1z

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

In <[email protected]> on 09 Nov 2004 01:03:06
GMT, [email protected] (Scott Ehrlich) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>In <[email protected]> on Mon, 08 Nov 2004
>>23:54:01 GMT, Jud Hardcastle <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, spamfilter0
>>>@navasgroup.com says...
>>
>>>> Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.
>>>
>>>You gotta be joking. Everything I've ever read from someone that
>>>actually USED a satellite phone was that it was extrememly picky--had to
>>>be totally clear skys with no trees or anything and then they had to
>>>walk around to get the best antenna angle. Most STORMS include heavy
>>>rain and/or hail--the sat phone will get squat during that.
>>
>>Inmarsat has excellent all-weather reliability, which is why it has become the
>>standard for marine communication. Iridium is quite good too, especially
>>given a current model handset. Both of course need an unobstructed view of
>>the sky. I've used both, and given an unobstructed view of the sky, have
>>never had to walk around, worry about antenna angle, or have a problem in a
>>storm.
>
>Well, the hobby of ham radio does a wonderful job of breaking through when
>most everything else fails. Simple technology, cheap, and technical
>know-how from licensed users.

No offense, but especially when at sea, I would always use Inmarsat or
Irridium over ham.

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

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Well, the hobby of ham radio does a wonderful job of breaking through when
>>most everything else fails. Simple technology, cheap, and technical
>>know-how from licensed users.
>
>No offense, but especially when at sea, I would always use Inmarsat or
>Irridium over ham.

No offense taken. Just pointing out a great hobby with wonderful
communications abilities that is all too often overlooked.

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

Scott

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

In <[email protected]> on 09 Nov 2004 01:19:51
GMT, [email protected] (Scott Ehrlich) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Well, the hobby of ham radio does a wonderful job of breaking through when
>>>most everything else fails. Simple technology, cheap, and technical
>>>know-how from licensed users.
>>
>>No offense, but especially when at sea, I would always use Inmarsat or
>>Irridium over ham.
>
>No offense taken. Just pointing out a great hobby with wonderful
>communications abilities that is all too often overlooked.

Indeed. Ham often comes to the rescue in times of crisis.

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

USENET READER wrote:

> It's not just voice quality.
>
> When we have had hurricanes and ice storms, we have never lost land-line
> phone service. Which means that we could always call the police, fire
> and ambulances if need be. And one time we were able to call to make a
> reservation in a motel when we had no power and the temps were going to
> be in the 20s at night.
>
> If we only had cell phone service, once we lost battery power in the
> cell phone, we would have been screwed. Also, the cell towers need
> power to function and they didn't have power after their generators ran
> out of fuel and the batteries died.
>
> I hope that the various states require - for emergency purposes more
> than anything else - that we maintain a healthy home and business land
> line phone system which would include payphones, so that in the event of
> an emergency, people can still use the phones to reach emergency and
> other needed services.
>

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. Don't count on the wireless
provider to have a COW for every need. Several wireless providers
staged almost every COW they owned for the Florida situation in Sept,
leaving their regular areas almost uncovered for their own needs - some
from as far away as Wisconsin. Yes, technology has improved over the
years with the wireless network trying to automatically react to holes
punched in the net, and wireline repairpeople were stringing cable as
fast as they could. Which best serves the emergency needs of the
growing public is sometimes a crap shoot.

The bottom line is wireline and wireless exist under two very different
business models. Currently, wireless is largely free from the statutory
bonds that wireline companies are accustomed to. IMO, wireless cannot
survive under the same statutory umbrella as wireline, nor should it
because radio and wires are two entirely different transportation
systems, and they should never be compared in similar regard.

You pay your money and you take your chances.


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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> There have been a number of notable cases where landlines went out, and
> cellular was the only phone service available.

There are exceptions to every rule, but rules shouldn't be based on
the exceptions. It's always better to have a backup.

> Satellite phone is arguably the highest level of reliability.

Not a viable alternative for most of us.

--
John Richards

Doubt that, unless you have a government sat phone. 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. The
amateur community is most cities has a disaster plan that will set up
an emergency communication trailer that can get a message out of, or
into an area destroyed by a natural act. They practice this several
times a year and have come in handy with the hurricanes in the Florida
area, and also with the military affiliated radio service (M.A.R.S.)
send messages back and forth between military families and their
sons/daughters overseas.





>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.
>
>In <[email protected]> on Mon, 08 Nov 2004
>21:08:07 GMT, "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:

Jack Zwick wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Most power failures are far shorter than the fuel supply duration of a
>> cell tower generator. At some point the batteries and fuel supply at
>> your local telco's central office would be exhausted too, meaning that
>> the landlines would go dead. But I do share your concern that in an
>> emergency cellular is less reliable than a wireline, and for that reason
>> I will maintain my home wireline service for the foreseeable future.
>>
>> --
>> John Richards
>
> And if you want a reliable dsl broadband connection you need a local
> landline also. I got tired of weekly outages with Roadrunner.



In my lifetime, my landline phones have been available for my use
99.99999999999999999999% of the time. In the 10 years or so I have been
using cellular service, my cell phones have been available for use maybe
70% of the time. Additionally, virtually every phone call I've made or
received via landline has had more than acceptable quality in terms of
being able to hear and be heard clearly and without fading or some sort
of noise or interference.

Cell service has a long way to go before it even approaches the
reliability of landline telephone service.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 09 Nov 2004 05:57:10
GMT, p51d007 <[email protected]> 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 ... ? Satellite has bird and ground station redundancy as well as
dispersal.

>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.

--
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 Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:15:42 -0600, Jer
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

>The bottom line is wireline and wireless exist under two very different
>business models. Currently, wireless is largely free from the statutory
>bonds that wireline companies are accustomed to. IMO, wireless cannot
>survive under the same statutory umbrella as wireline, nor should it
>because radio and wires are two entirely different transportation
>systems, and they should never be compared in similar regard.
>
>You pay your money and you take your chances.

I personally think the market is doing a better job in wireless than the
government is doing in wireline.

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

In article <[email protected]>,
Harry Krause <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Most power failures are far shorter than the fuel supply duration of a
> >> cell tower generator. At some point the batteries and fuel supply at
> >> your local telco's central office would be exhausted too, meaning that
> >> the landlines would go dead. But I do share your concern that in an
> >> emergency cellular is less reliable than a wireline, and for that reason
> >> I will maintain my home wireline service for the foreseeable future.
> >>
> >> --
> >> John Richards
> >
> > And if you want a reliable dsl broadband connection you need a local
> > landline also. I got tired of weekly outages with Roadrunner.
>
>
>
> In my lifetime, my landline phones have been available for my use
> 99.99999999999999999999% of the time. In the 10 years or so I have been
> using cellular service, my cell phones have been available for use maybe
> 70% of the time. Additionally, virtually every phone call I've made or
> received via landline has had more than acceptable quality in terms of
> being able to hear and be heard clearly and without fading or some sort
> of noise or interference.
>
> Cell service has a long way to go before it even approaches the
> reliability of landline telephone service.

I find my cellular service infinitely more reliable on Cingular than it
was on Sprint, although not yet near landline.

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.

--
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. Maybe you do. I *might* be able to swing it, but the cost
simply isn't justifiable in my opinion.


> 2. What happened to: "It's ALWAYS BETTER to have a backup"?
> [emphasis added]

Some backups are simply not cost effective enough to offset the risk
they protect against. If I'm going to drain my bank account in access
fees alone, then it's not worth it to me and probably not worth it to
lots of other reasonable poeple out there.



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