Cell companies ill prepared for emergencies & extended outages

I think most all VZW sites stayed up during the duration but the 4x than average call volume caused problems for some customers to make calls.

 

It's the same with landlines... in a major quake, for example the Northridge quake in '94, the landlines were all down as well.

 

We can't be covered for anything. This is why I think it's still good to have analog so you can use in some cases 2 other networks or at least another network. And I am dang tired of hearing about this blackout, it's not the end of the world.

 

Amen. I thought I was the only one.

 

You edited this while I was replying. I want to know why it happened just like most people. I'm sick of the spectulation though. Once the facts come out, then we can talk about how to prevent it from happening again. It's too political right now to find a real solution. Wouldn't you agree? How do you find a solution to something before you know the cause?

 

Proper Preparedness and intensive testing?
Thats what computer networks go under all the time, Penetration Testing, to ward of hackers and such.

Before cell phones existed, theer were well other means of communication, I feel it should be up to the individual to find out about these means and be prepared to deal with the what ifs.
when it comes a simultaneous problem for the larger masses, then Lex Talionis! Survival of the fittest!

 

Perhaps you did not understand what I meant. Even with proper preparedness and intensive testing will not necessarily tell you what caused your problem. There could have many causes for the outage, each with a different way of solving the problem for next time. If it was lightning that caused that outage, then the solution is very different than if a hacker caused this. Government officials are looking into the cause, then we can seek a remedy. That's all I'm saying.

 

This is a wireless forum, not one about electrical engineering. Our topic here is preventing wireless networks from failing in the event of a power outage or major emergency. If you are tired of hearing about it, you dont have to read it. No one is making you come here, or click on a thread.

Everyone seems to be claiming that VZW was most reliable during this...I spoke with four or five friends in Manhattan who use VZW and were not able to make calls, even with constant redialing, for about 5 or 6 hours. Mobile web and TXT did not work for them at all for a few hours.

ATT and Cingular/TMO (same network in NYC) seem to be the only ones admitting that they had problems. VZW especially, seems to be denying it.

 

I was in detroit and my Verizon phones worked fine except for having to redial a couple of times, but thats expected in a time like this. I can say one thing for sure, it was nice talking on my phone while people with other carriers yelled at their phones for not working.

 

Look,

You can put a backup generator at every site, and propane storage tanks. But where do you think the cost is going to get passed to? If I have 135 sites in an area, and 5 of them fail, my network faired very well. This is the wireless business, people, there is NO guarantee of coverage or service 24X7. You HOPE it will be up, and you EXPECT it will be up, but nobody guarantees 100% completed calls, 100% coverage, it just won't happen in the real world. Now, in a high rise, where are you going to put a generator if your cell site is somewhere in the middle of the building? You're not, you'll put in a string of backup batteries that you hope will hold at max call volume for a couple of hours, no more. In the BUSINESS MODEL it doesn't make sense to do anything else. You are also not going to build in 100 extra channels per site JUST IN CASE something happens. As far as the Telcos go, we now have fiber, and competing companies. When AT&T was the ONLY thing around, yes, they had to be very bulletproof. We do have redundancy in our networks, we do have alternative methods of call routing, but let's face it, nobody will stay in business if they build sites based upon an EXPECTED call volume event in the future, not on actual normal usage. You would be bankrupt in 2 years from Capital Expendatures that never realized any type of income.

 

Agreed

 

But let's stop and think about a disaster and basic necessary communications. The first priority for communications in an emergency or disaster is Basic Services (Police, Fire, Medic, Local Government), next is ARES or RACES to augment and pass traffic from group to group or area to area (amateur emergency service) and then statewide communication resources for state government.

Remember, a cell phone is still considered a WANT, not a NEED. And we don't NEED the government trying to regulate how much capacity, and subsidizing something else that doesn't fit in the budget.

 

Yep, this is a discussion forum, not a Presidential debate.

 

T-Mobile worked when mostof my city was in a black-out.

 

I believe almost all cell sites have generator backup, in most cases for a min of 24 hours. However, during the blackout, all major switching equipment was down. All cell sites are connected to their switch via land-lines, when the switching equipment fails, there is no way for the sites to communicate to their switch (which is what connects them to the public network). I also believe that some carriers have their sites setup so they are able to communicate site to site without connecting to the public network. I recall that this was the reason that Nextel was the only carrier that was up during 9/11.

Although I do agree that every effort should be made to have complete redundancy, but I do not believe it is reasonable to designate this responsibility solely to the wireless carriers. From what I understand, a good portion of public safety network was down along with air traffic control.

On a side note, what do you think it would cost to create a completely redundant wireless network, public safety network, or air traffic control network....and would you pay an extra $100 per plane ride or maybe $25 to your monthly wireless bill?

 

Ugh, we do not need the government involved in more crap. While it sounds great here, they simply cannot be responible for everything! Look at the government bailing out Amtrak, the airlines, while it's great for awhile....they become dependant! De-regulation imo was a good idea at the time. I am tired of hearing "Land of the free", well if I want cable, Comcast, if I want phones, Verizon, if I want power, DelmarvaPower. So much for a choice huh (at least in Delaware). So, perhaps one day my state will see benefits of this. Just in theory, a super-monopoly like before airline deregulation, power, etc. is antithetical to some of our country's basic values (competition, survival of the fittest). Then again, everything seems to be hyppocritical haha. Wireless will never be 100%, nothing is, nothing will ever be. Crap happens, and we just have to deal. I feel the current 'government' has ultra-HYPED up the terrorist element IMO to scare people.

 

I do not see Amtrak as worth the money anymore. Trains in Europe are awesome, and well worth the money. AMtrak is slow, expensive, and poor. I think a NYC-Philly-Boston type thing is about all we can expect (acela=slow though). We are just too big of a country for trains, though I would love to see trains connect major cities in a region. I just don't think it will happen, same with wireless, it would be nice, but wireless just sucks and probably always will. High and mighty Verizon doesn't have that great of coverage (1X sucks, takes away from dbs). I am so tired of incessant Verizon cheerleading. The only place I have seen rock solid Verizon is Wilmington, DE. I guess I should expect less from "Americas best network"?

 

The Coast Starlight is useful as well... from SD to LA... dunno how useful it is from LA to SF. And the Capitol Corridor... I used to go from Berkeley (actually Richmond) to Sacto on that regularly... cheaper than flying, by far.

As for the national network... well, I hate to say it but it's not even close to competitive. If it were cheaper than flying I could see it but I really don't have time to take 3 days to get to New York, not when I can fly for less money and be there in five hours.

 

Face it, Amtrak as it is now...sucks. I think its useful for 3 hour and less trips, and will be better with faster trains. It again, is useful in areas where it's the only transportation. It's not feasable for longer trips and will not be for a long time. Planes are simply better for cross-country travel, though trains are better for cooridor routes, and I am glad Amtrak seems to be moving in that direction. About most "Americans", they never use Amtrak and probably have no opinion, since they are quite uneducated lol! I agree, in some cases it's a public service, but a public service should be useful...in some cases Amtrak isn't, but I hope they continue to change and grow.

Example: Amtrack from Wilmington DE to NYC, costs usually at least 150$. Many people are living in lower DE and traveling to NYC for a job (ick too far). They'd spend over 100$ each day, and still have to drive to Wilmington. Almost everyone drives, and honestly, it's just as fast unless there is a major accident. This was all in the paper regarding our area's recent boom in population. See, in this case Amtrak isn't feasable.

I hope you see my point. I know you enjoy railroads. I am just merely stating my opinion, for my area. It's not that I am totally against Amtrak lol, just needs help that's all. So do the airlines, but I hope they just don't become dependant on government $.