FCC needs to revisit cellular robustness

<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

---

› See More: FCC needs to revisit cellular robustness

Scott wrote:

>"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?
>
>
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

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.

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.

WhoIsIt wrote:
> 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.

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?

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

> >
> >
> > 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.

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

>

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 14 Sep 2005
21:20:49 -0600, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

--
Best 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]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:10:26 -0600,
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

Satellite is a ready alternative.

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 15 Sep 2005
19:10:26 -0600,
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> 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.

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?
> >
> >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.

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,
> >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.

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
> >> callers.
> >
> >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.


>
> >> 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?
>
> Satellite is a ready alternative.

Where I live it was 9/17/2005 11:19 AM, when John Navas wrote:

> 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?

--
Regards, Ben

Plan9 wrote:

>Where I live it was 9/17/2005 11:19 AM, when John Navas wrote:
>
>
>
>>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?
>
>
>
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

"Plan9" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
<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.

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

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:50:52 -0600,
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 15 Sep 2005
>19:10:26 -0600,
>> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>
>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 public’s 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.

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
09:50:52 -0600,
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 15 Sep 2005
> >19:10:26 -0600,
> >> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >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.
> >
> >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.

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
> >> 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.

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.