Why cellphones didn't work during the quake

[larry]

Why cellphones didn't work during the quake
5:12 PM, July 29, 2008
Fire trucks after the SoCal earthquake

The walls started shaking, the earth was quaking and all you wanted to do was call your relatives and reassure them that no, a brick did not fall on your head during the quake. But of course, in the hour or so following the 5.4 temblor that rocked Southern California, it wasn’t easy to make a call. Perhaps you got a busy signal, or it went straight to voice mail or it started to ring and then just dropped the call.

What gives? Why are cellphones most useless when you need them the most?

Mobile carriers project how many people will be using their phones during a crisis and try to ensure that their networks can handle that call volume, Verizon Wireless spokesman Ken Muche said. Today’s call volume was 40% higher than what Verizon had projected for a crisis. During last year’s wildfires, call volume was 600% higher, he said. Because of high call volume, Verizon had to start blocking some calls so that others could get through.

“No network has an infinite amount of capacity,” he said.

Every time you place a call, the call reaches out to the nearest cell tower and tries to connect, according to Sprint Nextel spokeswoman Kathleen Dunleavy. If it doesn’t find an open space on that site, it reaches out to the next one and pings around to different towers. In times when lots of people are using their phones, towers are all at capacity.

It doesn’t help that people keep trying and trying to make a call after their first attempt fails. So rather than handling 3 million calls, for instance, the towers have to handle 3 million people each trying five times to make a call, Dunleavy said.

There are things carriers can do in an extended emergency ...

... or if they know something like a quake is coming (by listening to toads, perhaps?). Carriers can bring in cell towers on wheels to expand the volume they can handle, Dunleavy said, and they do for events such as the Super Bowl and political conventions to ensure that everyone who wants to make a call can do so.

Since we haven’t quite gotten to the point where we can predict earthquakes, Chinese toads notwithstanding, what’s a cellphone user to do? For once, the iPhone isn’t an answer: not even the new iPhone’s 3G network was immune to the quake, an AT&T spokesman said. (Verizon's Muche did say some handsets are better at holding onto calls than others so might drop fewer calls during peak periods.)

The good news is that text messaging and e-mail should work just fine in high call-volume situations, because both use less bandwidth than voice calls. So while you might not be able to call your relatives and tell them that you're fine, you can still text them (whether they know what a text message is is anyone's guess).

Another solution: “Push to talk” services provided by companies such as Verizon and Sprint. Operating from point to point rather than through towers, they weren’t affected by the quake or the high call volume that followed. But they work only for talking to someone a few miles away, which, in the spread-out city that is Los Angeles, probably won’t get you very far in a crisis.

Have any stories about how your cellphone worked (or didn't) during the quake? Feel free to vent in the comments below. Oh, and now would be a good time to remind you that we moderate comments, so keep it clean.

-- Alana Semuels

Semuels, a Times staff writer, covers marketing and the L.A. tech scene.

[larry]

"The good news is that text messaging and e-mail should work just fine in high call-volume situations, because both use less bandwidth than voice calls. So while you might not be able to call your relatives and tell them that you're fine, you can still text them (whether they know what a text message is is anyone's guess)."


Yeah right! I was unable to send text messages or even use the internet on my phone for at least an hour following the quake.

I think this proves that carrier's need to better prepare for these situations. Also like the article says people need to stop trying over and over repeatedly to try to make calls when the system is down. This greatly adds to the problem.

[Telekom]

Originally Posted by larry

"The good news is that text messaging and e-mail should work just fine in high call-volume situations, because both use less bandwidth than voice calls. So while you might not be able to call your relatives and tell them that you're fine, you can still text them (whether they know what a text message is is anyone's guess)."


Yeah right! I was unable to send text messages or even use the internet on my phone for at least an hour following the quake.

I think this proves that carrier's need to better prepare for these situations. Also like the article says people need to stop trying over and over repeatedly to try to make calls when the system is down. This greatly adds to the problem.

Yeah, them cheapskate carriers. They ought to have enough capacity that every one of their customers can get on the phone all at once. Who cares if the company goes bankrupt or has to increase rates 500%!

[music4praise]

Originally Posted by larry

Why cellphones didn't work during the quake
5:12 PM, July 29, 2008
Fire trucks after the SoCal earthquake

.....

Another solution: “Push to talk” services provided by companies such as Verizon and Sprint. Operating from point to point rather than through towers, they weren’t affected by the quake or the high call volume that followed. But they work only for talking to someone a few miles away, which, in the spread-out city that is Los Angeles, probably won’t get you very far in a crisis.

....
-- Alana Semuels

Semuels, a Times staff writer, covers marketing and the L.A. tech scene.

This is inaccurate. Push to talk uses the cellular infrastructure to provide the service. It operates half-duplex so less bandwidth is used but it is not point to point like a regular walkie-talkie or CB radio. If PTT kept working, as the article alleges, it is because of bandwidth dedicated to the PTT service.

[larry]

Originally Posted by Telekom

Yeah, them cheapskate carriers. They ought to have enough capacity that every one of their customers can get on the phone all at once. Who cares if the company goes bankrupt or has to increase rates 500%!

I'm surprised you feel this way. Maybe you would have a different opinion if you had been directly involved in this like I was. This was a realitvely moderate earthquake that really didn't cause much damage but yet the carriers couldn't handle the call volume or even text messaging. I'd hate to think what would happen if a real emergency hit. But anyway I think they can do better and have just underestimated the call volume that would happen in a situation like this. The Verizon spokesperson admitted to the fact they underestimated by 40%. They would not have to increase rates by 500% to bolster their network in these times. It just takes a little better planning and some extra investing. Nobody expects networks to work perfectly in situations like earthquakes but to have everything just shut down for an hour and a half (including text messaging & internet) for such a moderate event like we had is unacceptable in my opinion. Especially the text messaging part. They will learn their lesson from this and try to at least do a little bit better next time. Hopefully...

[Mobile Mike]

I avoided using my cell phones after the quake because I knew an overload would happen. Even before cell phones hit it big, the instinct to reach for the phone when a quake happens existed. This happened in 1987 and 1994 here with landlines after those respective earthquakes.

The only difference now is that cell phones are an entrenched part of our lives now, and you can call anyone anytime or anywhere. Except, when more people are trying to use their cell phone than what a carrier's maximum capacity allows, we get what happened yesterday.

It was my experience that most of the carriers were up fairly quickly, but others weren't. I never expected the carriers to operate normally after the quake. They weren't perfect before the quake, so why would I believe they would be after one?

Only an hour or so later did I attempt test calls to 611 with each of the carriers I have just to see if the call would go through. Verizon & AT&T went through normally, T-Mobile did not for another hour or so. This wasn't a scientifically absolute test, just my experience making calls in the area I was in yesterday.

Hopefully some lessons were learned from this situation. I guess we'll find out the next time a major disaster hits.

[Telekom]

Originally Posted by larry

I'm surprised you feel this way. Maybe you would have a different opinion if you had been directly involved in this like I was. This was a realitvely moderate earthquake that really didn't cause much damage but yet the carriers couldn't handle the call volume or even text messaging. I'd hate to think what would happen if a real emergency hit. But anyway I think they can do better and have just underestimated the call volume that would happen in a situation like this. The Verizon spokesperson admitted to the fact they underestimated by 40%. They would not have to increase rates by 500% to bolster their network in these times. It just takes a little better planning and some extra investing. Nobody expects networks to work perfectly in situations like earthquakes but to have everything just shut down for an hour and a half (including text messaging & internet) for such a moderate event like we had is unacceptable in my opinion. Especially the text messaging part. They will learn their lesson from this and try to at least do a little bit better next time. Hopefully...

The fact remains that no network is able to meet the needs of each and every one of their customers trying to use the network at once. Provisioning a network to provide connections for each and every customer who potentially could use the network at any time is cost prohibitive. No network whether cellular or fixed line based can run a network that way. I'm sorry you experienced difficulties, but expecting any network to provide 100% reliable service during a stress is naïve at best.

And just FYI I have experienced the same phenomenon that those in So Cal. experienced in 2001 when western Washington had the Nisqually quake.

[bobolito]

....The good news is that text messaging and e-mail should work just fine in high call-volume situations, because both use less bandwidth than voice calls....

This is such a load of crap. Why do they keep implying that text messaging is not affected?

While it is true that SMS has a slight better chance of going through than a phone call on a loaded network, if the system is down, it is down for everybody and SMS are not going to work either.

I guess they're trying to spread the idea that SMS are more reliable to get people to make less phone calls during emergencies. If everyone did that, then I can see SMS going through just fine. But the fact is most people don't do that. 500 text messages can go through easier on a single cell site than 500 phone calls. But when you have 500 people trying to hit a single cell site to make phone calls, and another 10 people trying to send SMS, I don't see those SMS going through. When a network is overloaded, nobody gets through until a control channel is free. SMS needs control channels just like phone calls do, so if they are busy, no SMS are going through either.

And the problem gets even worse because you have two factors working against the network: people overloading capacity, and the emergency itself affects the network. So not only you have more demand, you also have reduced capacity as a result of floods, downed equipment, power failures, wind damage, or whatever else the disaster brings. That makes matters even worse. You could have cell sites not processing a single call because the lines connecting it went down.

It's a reality we all need to be prepared for: never rely on technology to be there when disaster strikes. It's NOT going to work! Just be prepared to use smoke signals if you have to because when disaster strikes, all you have is your own two hands. Communication technologies are just luxuries of today's world. I don't know where we got the idea that they can act as reliable widespread emergency or defense tools.

[Ddeere2]

That's got to suck. I feel sorry for all you that had to experience this. But, you had to kind of expect it, I mean. When some one says not to panic, a lot of people do anyways. This is interesting though. I have a friend who lives in LA and I was texting her just fine. She has AT&T just like I do, maybe it was the area she was at. I really wouldn't think they would under estimate it though, they had to know just about everyone was going to try and call, this is no excuse for them. This is one of the top 25 markets in the US. I think its just they're way saying that yes their network does suck. But you do have to admit they had a fast recovery than before.

[larry]

Originally Posted by Telekom

but expecting any network to provide 100% reliable service during a stress is naïve at best.

LOL!. Where did I say I expected 100% reliability? Heck I wouldn't even expect that on a normal day. All I was implying is that they can and need to do a little bit better in the future for a similar minor to moderate quake or other event. This will be a learning experience for the carrier's because their networks here in So. Cal have never really been tested with an earthquake before. The last earthquake of any real value here was back in the 1990's at a time when most people didn't have a cell phone. I believe they will rise to the occassion and make a few changes here and there to better prepare in the event this happens again. With the way people have become so reliant on their cell phones these days it is getting more and more important to provide reliable service. Even the carrier's have admitted that they weren't quite prepared for this and underestimated the call volume which would occur. So they themselves are admitting they need to do better, it's not just me who feels this way. Does that make sense to you? Or would you rather the carrier's just sit back and let things remain the same so it will even be worse next time this happens? Just curious.

Originally Posted by bobolito

And the problem gets even worse because you have two factors working against the network: people overloading capacity, and the emergency itself affects the network. So not only you have more demand, you also have reduced capacity as a result of floods, downed equipment, power failures, wind damage, or whatever else the disaster brings. That makes matters even worse. You could have cell sites not processing a single call because the lines connecting it went down.

It's a reality we all need to be prepared for: never rely on technology to be there when disaster strikes. It's NOT going to work! Just be prepared to use smoke signals if you have to because when disaster strikes, all you have is your own two hands. Communication technologies are just luxuries of today's world. I don't know where we got the idea that they can act as reliable widespread emergency or defense tools.

Yeah I completely agree with you but remember this wasn't really much of a disaster. There was no physical damage done to the network. For the most part it was just a lot of people picking up their phones at the same time to ask their friends and family "Did you feel the earthquake'? In the event of a real disater such as what you described I would not expect any kind of service to work. In this particular situation the carrier's just need to re-evaluate their system and see what they can do better next time.

[Mobile Mike]

Originally Posted by Telekom

The fact remains that no network is able to meet the needs of each and every one of their customers trying to use the network at once. Provisioning a network to provide connections for each and every customer who potentially could use the network at any time is cost prohibitive. No network whether cellular or fixed line based can run a network that way. I'm sorry you experienced difficulties, but expecting any network to provide 100% reliable service during a stress is naïve at best.

And just FYI I have experienced the same phenomenon that those in So Cal. experienced in 2001 when western Washington had the Nisqually quake.

No kidding. What makes you think larry or myself aren't aware about the limitations of the mobile carriers when it comes to situations like this? We've been on this site long enough to understand these things.

Originally Posted by Telekom

Yeah, them cheapskate carriers. They ought to have enough capacity that every one of their customers can get on the phone all at once. Who cares if the company goes bankrupt or has to increase rates 500%!

Your earlier post comes across as obnoxious and presumptive. Even if you have inside knowledge of this field, your attitude practically disqualifies the value of your post.

[RadioRaiders]

Originally Posted by larry

Mobile carriers project how many people will be using their phones during a crisis and try to ensure that their networks can handle that call volume, Verizon Wireless spokesman Ken Muche said. Today’s call volume was 40% higher than what Verizon had projected for a crisis. During last year’s wildfires, call volume was 600% higher, he said. Because of high call volume, Verizon had to start blocking some calls so that others could get through.

“No network has an infinite amount of capacity,” he said.
.

Mobile carriers calculate capacity based on the "busy hour", which means they look at the sites daily peak usage and dimension (or slighly over dimension) for that. I'm not sure what the Verizon spokesman was talking about, I don't know any carrier that over dimensions their networks by 600% just for crisis situations Imagine if everyone on your ISP suddenly started downloading a DVD all at the same time, and then everyone stars complaining of slow connection speeds

I think when crisises like earth-quakes occur, you have to accept that you will lose some basic utilities like maybe electricity...and *gasp*...yes, even cell-phone service, for a little while. Llife isn't perfect and that utilities/communications do get temporarily disrupted in times of disasters.

...and strange why the writer of this article, or anyone else, seems to consider using land-lines or (non-wireless) e-mail to contact loved ones in a crisis? There are more than 1 form of communications available today. If my cell-phone didn't work, the next thing I would try would be a land-line, or then a DSL connection to e-mail or Skype.

...and by the way, even land-lines and internet servers can have their circuits overloaded. The day of and after 9/11 I couldn't reach any fixed-line in the New York area. And cnn.com was giving only a white screen as it's server was overloaded.

[KyleAndMelissa22]

I wonder which networks handled it better than others....

I know back on 10-30-2007 there was a 5.6 quake near San Jose,
and my friend's MetroPCS service was down in Palo Alto for about an hour,

but his other cell phone (Sprint PCS) was not affected,
and he called me within 10 minutes of that quake.

BTW I'll be leaving for SF, CA in 2 days, and I'll be there for a week,
hopefully I don't get to experience my 1st earthquake.

[bobolito]

Some time ago, we posted a story about a new cellular technology that worked from a blimp in the sky. Maybe that would be a viable option for disaster times since they can be setup rather quickly and don't depend on terrestrial lines or land power.

[NokiaKrazy]

I'm surprised that the suggestion of dialing *228 was not ever mentioned. Some people think that this is a fix all for every problem that may arise. Some folks believe that *228 will feed the hungry, mow the lawn, repair the car and so on.

Try to explain that *228 is a PRL update to these people, they just look at you like a deer caught in the headlights.

[larry]

Originally Posted by KyleAndMelissa22

I wonder which networks handled it better than others....

I think every carrier was affected by this. I know T-Mobile was hit especially hard because they have a lot of users in the general area of the quake. Sprint's problems were that all of the switches in the LA/OC area shut down because of the traffic. So even if you were on a cell site with enough capacity you still were out of luck. Even Metro PCS who's only been in LA for less than a year got jammed up. I guess this tells you that either their network sucks or they have more customers than we probably all thought. I forced my phone over to roaming (Verizon) and couldn't make calls or send texts either for at least 45 minutes to an hour. Not sure about AT&T or Nextel but heard that Nextel might have been the least affected of all of the carriers. Probably because they don't have a lot of users anymore.

Originally Posted by NokiaKrazy

I'm surprised that the suggestion of dialing *228 was not ever mentioned. Some people think that this is a fix all for every problem that may arise. Some folks believe that *228 will feed the hungry, mow the lawn, repair the car and so on.

Try to explain that *228 is a PRL update to these people, they just look at you like a deer caught in the headlights.

Actually on Sprint it's *18 that everyone seems to think is a fix for everything. I've been trying to set the records straight on this for years but there's sill those who bring it up and think it's a fix for things even though it has nothing to do with that whatsoever.