NYC moves to ID bad call areas/dead zones

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/1....ap/index.html

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city will try to root out cell phone dead
spots by asking people to report places where they can't get service.

"Cell phones generally provide a great service," Bloomberg said Monday. "The
trouble is that every once in a while cell phones don't work -- and cell
phones don't work exactly at the wrong time, or in places that you are, and
it's very annoying."

He said it also was dangerous because people might be unable to place 911
calls in certain areas.

Bloomberg said frustrated callers should phone -- from a landline,
presumably -- the city's 311 help line to report trouble spots. The
information -- including the cell phone carrier and whether the call was
attempted indoors or outside -- will be collected and disseminated to the
public beginning November 24.

That date coincides with the effective day of a federal law that will allow
mobile phone customers to switch carriers while maintaining their phone
number.

The city said it also will begin to monitor wireless carriers to ensure that
the companies are following industry guidelines for consumer services,
including disclosing rates and terms of service and allowing for trial
periods on new purchases.

Though a recent J.D. Power and Associates study ranked New York last in
customer satisfaction and call quality in the nation's 27 largest cell phone
markets, Bloomberg took care not to criticize wireless phone companies.

As is the case in most places, mobile phone use in the city has increased
exponentially during the past several years. In 1999, there were 3 million
cell phone subscriptions in the city; this year, there are 10.5 million. The
city has a population of about 8 million.

During the 2001 World Trade Center attack and this summer's blackout, many
cell phone calls, including those made to 911, failed to connect.

But Verizon Wireless defended its service, emphasizing maintenance and
improvements.

"Verizon Wireless test drives its network every day over several thousand
miles, spending $1 billion every 90 days to improve its wireless network,"
said spokesman Howie Waterman. "A good chunk of that money goes to improve
the system."

Representatives from Nextel and AT&T Wireless did not return calls seeking
comment Monday.

Earlier this month, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, accused cell phone
companies of doing little to improve service in dead spots, saying "instead
of building up infrastructure, cell phone companies are spending all their
time marketing their services to new customers."

At the time, Verizon Wireless spokesman Jim Gerace said, "we know where the
dead zones are and we are addressing them."

Copyright 2003 - AP - CNN.com

---

› See More: NYC moves to ID bad call areas/dead zones

Steve wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/1....ap/index.html
>
> Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city will try to root out cell phone dead
> spots by asking people to report places where they can't get service.
>
> "Cell phones generally provide a great service," Bloomberg said Monday. "The
> trouble is that every once in a while cell phones don't work -- and cell
> phones don't work exactly at the wrong time, or in places that you are, and
> it's very annoying."

He's right, it's very annoying when service isn't what you expect.
Maybe Mayor Bloomberg's 311 Rat Line will eventually result in
legislative efforts to force carriers to put two cell sites every
other block (or every other cow in rural areas). Then, cellular
carriers will be obligated to provide 911 service, instead of the
voluntary service currently offered to everyone. Then, and only then,
will wireless systemns begin to approach the service obligations of
wireline providers.


>
> He said it also was dangerous because people might be unable to place 911
> calls in certain areas.

Gee, like from their home?


>
> Bloomberg said frustrated callers should phone -- from a landline,
> presumably -- the city's 311 help line to report trouble spots. The
> information -- including the cell phone carrier and whether the call was
> attempted indoors or outside -- will be collected and disseminated to the
> public beginning November 24.
>
> That date coincides with the effective day of a federal law that will allow
> mobile phone customers to switch carriers while maintaining their phone
> number.
>
> The city said it also will begin to monitor wireless carriers to ensure that
> the companies are following industry guidelines for consumer services,
> including disclosing rates and terms of service and allowing for trial
> periods on new purchases.
>
> Though a recent J.D. Power and Associates study ranked New York last in
> customer satisfaction and call quality in the nation's 27 largest cell phone
> markets, Bloomberg took care not to criticize wireless phone companies.
>
> As is the case in most places, mobile phone use in the city has increased
> exponentially during the past several years. In 1999, there were 3 million
> cell phone subscriptions in the city; this year, there are 10.5 million. The
> city has a population of about 8 million.
>
> During the 2001 World Trade Center attack and this summer's blackout, many
> cell phone calls, including those made to 911, failed to connect.

There has never been a time where a local disaster event didn't
overwhelm ALL public communication systems for some period of time.
And this is precisely why first responder services don't solely depend
on public communication systems. Think two-way radio.

>
> But Verizon Wireless defended its service, emphasizing maintenance and
> improvements.
>
> "Verizon Wireless test drives its network every day over several thousand
> miles, spending $1 billion every 90 days to improve its wireless network,"
> said spokesman Howie Waterman. "A good chunk of that money goes to improve
> the system."

Virtually ALL wireless communication providers drive test their own
networks, and some even occasionally drive test their competitors
networks, too. Think Comarco. http://www.comarco.com

>
> Representatives from Nextel and AT&T Wireless did not return calls seeking
> comment Monday.

Nutz. I guess they're not oblicated to service the mayor's office either.

>
> Earlier this month, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, accused cell phone
> companies of doing little to improve service in dead spots, saying "instead
> of building up infrastructure, cell phone companies are spending all their
> time marketing their services to new customers."

No argument there.

>
> At the time, Verizon Wireless spokesman Jim Gerace said, "we know where the
> dead zones are and we are addressing them."

Well, if they know the address of the dead spot....

>
> Copyright 2003 - AP - CNN.com
>
>


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/1....ap/index.html
>
> Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city will try to root out cell phone dead
> spots by asking people to report places where they can't get service.
>
> "Cell phones generally provide a great service," Bloomberg said Monday.
"The
> trouble is that every once in a while cell phones don't work -- and cell
> phones don't work exactly at the wrong time, or in places that you are,
and
> it's very annoying."
>
> He said it also was dangerous because people might be unable to place 911
> calls in certain areas.

Give us all a break, Bloomberg. We all managed to dial 911 effectively
before the advent of cell phones. So what makes them such a safety necessity
now? (Note: the events of 9/11, while personally tragic to me and many other
people, have only happened once in the history of the world. So they
shouldn't be the basis of regulation in this somewhat unrelated industry.)

Rob

"+ Rob +" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Give us all a break, Bloomberg. We all managed to dial 911 effectively
> before the advent of cell phones.

Did we? Tell me, before cell phones, how did one call for help when they
were on the road?

> So what makes them such a safety necessity
> now?

It's nice to not die because you couldn't "get to" a phone.

(Note: the events of 9/11, while personally tragic to me and many other
> people, have only happened once in the history of the world. So they
> shouldn't be the basis of regulation in this somewhat unrelated industry.)

That event is once. If you think that's the only time anyone ever needed to
call 911, I don't even know where to begin.


---
Update your PC at http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 11/9/2003

> Give us all a break, Bloomberg. We all managed to dial 911 effectively
> before the advent of cell phones. So what makes them such a safety necessity
> now? (Note: the events of 9/11, while personally tragic to me and many other
> people, have only happened once in the history of the world. So they
> shouldn't be the basis of regulation in this somewhat unrelated industry.)
>
> Rob


You need a mobile phone in the city because it's not safe to look at
somebody you don't know. You need a mobile phone in the rural areas
because you may not encounter too many people driving at night when your
car brakes down winter, and that one candle will only last so long.

AD

"About Dakota" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Give us all a break, Bloomberg. We all managed to dial 911
effectively
> > before the advent of cell phones. So what makes them such a safety
necessity
> > now? (Note: the events of 9/11, while personally tragic to me and many
other
> > people, have only happened once in the history of the world. So they
> > shouldn't be the basis of regulation in this somewhat unrelated
industry.)
> >
> > Rob
>
>
> You need a mobile phone in the city because it's not safe to look at
> somebody you don't know. You need a mobile phone in the rural areas
> because you may not encounter too many people driving at night when your
> car brakes down winter, and that one candle will only last so long.

I would never argue that a mobile phone isn't useful in certain
situations -- such as those you listed. But it's not a need; it's a luxury.
Food, water and shelter, etc. are needs. A mobile phone, on the other hand,
is merely a convenience item that makes person-to-person communication
easier in various situations.
Granted, there are situations in which a mobile phone can assist in
saving a person's life. But, then, so can many items, such as a gun (for
fighting off an attacker), a strip of cloth (for a tourniquet), or a
parachute (for jumping out of a burning building). And those things aren't
human needs either. They're just nice to have if a particular set of
circumstances happens to arise.

Rob

"Carl." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "+ Rob +" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Give us all a break, Bloomberg. We all managed to dial 911
effectively
> > before the advent of cell phones.
>
> Did we? Tell me, before cell phones, how did one call for help when they
> were on the road?

Even today, most of the roads we all traverse are in populated areas
that have sufficient land-line service. So there is usually access to a
phone and/or another human being.

> > So what makes them such a safety necessity
> > now?
>
> It's nice to not die because you couldn't "get to" a phone.

Obviously. But where's the logical end to that idea? If we're all
willing to pay $1000/month for what we now pay $50 for, the mobile phone
companies can put up enough towers to enable wall-to-wall service from here
to Timbuktu. However, that's just not feasible. Because customers won't pay
that kind of premium and comprehensive service requires monumental
investments in infrastructure. Thus, there are always going to be service
holes -- especially in a nation as large and relatively sparsely populated
as this one.

> (Note: the events of 9/11, while personally tragic to me and many other
> > people, have only happened once in the history of the world. So they
> > shouldn't be the basis of regulation in this somewhat unrelated
industry.)
>
> That event is once. If you think that's the only time anyone ever needed
to
> call 911, I don't even know where to begin.

People need to call 911 for all types of legitimate reasons. That's a
fact. But that doesn't mean that every individual must remain in constant
contact with the world wirelessly for every moment of their lives. Both
money and technology are limited. So there are always going to be practical
limits to mobile phone service. Because all-the-time, everywhere service
would require the sort of economic investment on the part of mobile
operators that just isn't possible.
Yet, Bloomberg is conveniently omitting any talk of economics from his
public outcry. He's just talking about forcing these companies to provide
something very expensive to the public for free; which essentially amounts
to potentially regulating the industry into financial oblivion for the sake
of the one quarter of one percent of users who might actually *need* the
additional service.
Is that really beneficial or sensible? I don't think so...

Rob

well said


"+ Rob +" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "About Dakota" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > Give us all a break, Bloomberg. We all managed to dial 911
> effectively
> > > before the advent of cell phones. So what makes them such a safety
> necessity
> > > now? (Note: the events of 9/11, while personally tragic to me and many
> other
> > > people, have only happened once in the history of the world. So they
> > > shouldn't be the basis of regulation in this somewhat unrelated
> industry.)
> > >
> > > Rob
> >
> >
> > You need a mobile phone in the city because it's not safe to look at
> > somebody you don't know. You need a mobile phone in the rural areas
> > because you may not encounter too many people driving at night when your
> > car brakes down winter, and that one candle will only last so long.
>
> I would never argue that a mobile phone isn't useful in certain
> situations -- such as those you listed. But it's not a need; it's a
luxury.
> Food, water and shelter, etc. are needs. A mobile phone, on the other
hand,
> is merely a convenience item that makes person-to-person communication
> easier in various situations.
> Granted, there are situations in which a mobile phone can assist in
> saving a person's life. But, then, so can many items, such as a gun (for
> fighting off an attacker), a strip of cloth (for a tourniquet), or a
> parachute (for jumping out of a burning building). And those things aren't
> human needs either. They're just nice to have if a particular set of
> circumstances happens to arise.
>
> Rob
>
>

"+ Rob +" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > You need a mobile phone in the city because it's not safe to look at
> > somebody you don't know. You need a mobile phone in the rural areas
> > because you may not encounter too many people driving at night when your
> > car brakes down winter, and that one candle will only last so long.
>
> I would never argue that a mobile phone isn't useful in certain
> situations -- such as those you listed. But it's not a need; it's a
luxury.
> Food, water and shelter, etc. are needs. A mobile phone, on the other
hand,
> is merely a convenience item that makes person-to-person communication
> easier in various situations.
> Granted, there are situations in which a mobile phone can assist in
> saving a person's life. But, then, so can many items, such as a gun (for
> fighting off an attacker), a strip of cloth (for a tourniquet), or a
> parachute (for jumping out of a burning building). And those things aren't
> human needs either. They're just nice to have if a particular set of
> circumstances happens to arise.
>
> Rob
>

He needs that cell phone in case his suv breaks down.

"Rich Cacace" <richcacace-REMOVE TO [email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "+ Rob +" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > You need a mobile phone in the city because it's not safe to look at
> > > somebody you don't know. You need a mobile phone in the rural areas
> > > because you may not encounter too many people driving at night when
your
> > > car brakes down winter, and that one candle will only last so long.
> >
> > I would never argue that a mobile phone isn't useful in certain
> > situations -- such as those you listed. But it's not a need; it's a
> luxury.
> > Food, water and shelter, etc. are needs. A mobile phone, on the other
> hand,
> > is merely a convenience item that makes person-to-person communication
> > easier in various situations.
> > Granted, there are situations in which a mobile phone can assist in
> > saving a person's life. But, then, so can many items, such as a gun (for
> > fighting off an attacker), a strip of cloth (for a tourniquet), or a
> > parachute (for jumping out of a burning building). And those things
aren't
> > human needs either. They're just nice to have if a particular set of
> > circumstances happens to arise.
> >
> > Rob
> >
>
> He needs that cell phone in case his suv breaks down.

That makes me think of all the drivers here in Minnesota who, out of the
supposed goodness of their hearts, adorn their SUVs with special
"environmental preservation" license plates.....as if anything could be any
less environmentally conscientious than a gas-guzzling SUV.

Rob

+ Rob + wrote:

> That makes me think of all the drivers here in Minnesota who, out of the
> supposed goodness of their hearts, adorn their SUVs with special
> "environmental preservation" license plates.....as if anything could be any
> less environmentally conscientious than a gas-guzzling SUV.
>
> Rob


Nothing screams conspicuous consumption like a Hummer. And
considering the brick-like aerodynamics of most SUVs, they all
incessantly chat about it.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> Obviously. But where's the logical end to that idea? If we're all
>willing to pay $1000/month for what we now pay $50 for, the mobile phone
>companies can put up enough towers to enable wall-to-wall service from here
>to Timbuktu. However, that's just not feasible. Because customers won't pay
>that kind of premium and comprehensive service requires monumental
>investments in infrastructure. Thus, there are always going to be service
>holes -- especially in a nation as large and relatively sparsely populated
>as this one.

I get the impression you are not in NYC. Otherwise you would know that
there are many dead spots here. When you consider the number of cell
phone subscribers, there is not excuse for it. The companies here in
NYC have been concentrating on getting more subsribers and not on
their infrastructure, so the same dead spots persist and you still get
many 'system couldn't complete your call' messages.

---------------
Alex

"Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
> > Obviously. But where's the logical end to that idea? If we're all
> >willing to pay $1000/month for what we now pay $50 for, the mobile phone
> >companies can put up enough towers to enable wall-to-wall service from
here
> >to Timbuktu. However, that's just not feasible. Because customers won't
pay
> >that kind of premium and comprehensive service requires monumental
> >investments in infrastructure. Thus, there are always going to be service
> >holes -- especially in a nation as large and relatively sparsely
populated
> >as this one.
>
> I get the impression you are not in NYC. Otherwise you would know that
> there are many dead spots here. When you consider the number of cell
> phone subscribers, there is not excuse for it. The companies here in
> NYC have been concentrating on getting more subsribers and not on
> their infrastructure, so the same dead spots persist and you still get
> many 'system couldn't complete your call' messages.

You're correct about me not being in NYC. I'm in Minneapolis. However, I
did grow up there, and I do spend A LOT of time there (roughly 3 months per
year business/personal). So I'm very familiar with the rampant dead spots in
and around the city. And, honestly, I do find them frustrating at times.
However, that said, I simply don't think it's the proper role of
government to regulate anything and everything that businesses do just
because the notion is popular with the masses.
Yes, it would be nice to have total, wall-to-wall coverage in the city,
around the city, and everywhere else. But who's going to pay for it? I don't
hear Bloomberg offering to pay for the added infrastructure with taxpayer
money. Because if he did, there'd be hell to pay politically. And I also
don't hear him saying anything about subscription fees going through the
roof as a result of these expenditures either. Because any mention of that
would also be political suicide. Yet, somebody has to pay for it, right? And
it's going to be either one or the other: government or subscribers.
Because, like it or not, profits in the industry hardly exist as it is. So
without a significant increase in available money per customer -- from
whatever source -- these companies can basically only afford to spend money
on things that can be proportionately recouped by higher subscriber numbers.

Rob

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:29:52 -0500, Alex Rodriguez <[email protected]>
posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>their infrastructure, so the same dead spots persist and you still get
>many 'system couldn't complete your call' messages.

That's not a dead spot, that's a system overload.