Bridge Collapse: Why Did Cell Phones Fail?
These failures might have been OK ten years ago when cell phones were still something of a novelty to the average American. But in today's day and age, as we increasingly abandon traditional landlines in favor of mobile handsets, the dependability of these networks is crucial. Failure is unacceptable. Those ads featuring the nerdy "Can you hear me now?" guy are quite frankly insulting.
Sadly, there doesn't seem to be any official solution in the works. There's been no plea from FEMA or mandate from the FCC to the cell networks to have a contingency plan in place during emergencies. And if they're not obligated to spend money on improving their networks, do you think the cellular carriers would ever bother? Of course not.
The answer, it turns out, isn't so far-fetched. It would be relatively easy for providers to implement, and might even make them some money. In an article written in response to Hurricane Katrina a full eight months before the Minneapolis tragedy, scientist and author David Brin proposed an emergency system in which cell providers adopt peer-to-peer technology similar to that used by file-sharing programs on the Internet. Instead of phone calls being routed through cell towers, they bounce from phone to phone until they get where they need to go. Brin also suggests limiting this peer-to-peer system to text messaging in times of emergency. Voice calls eat up a lot of bandwidth and can easily overload a system, whereas text messaging uses packet switching, like the Internet, which breaks messages up into smaller, more manageable pieces before sending them. By circumventing overloaded cell towers and limiting communication to low-bandwidth text messaging, it is possible in times of tragedy for the cell networks to deliver on the promises of coverage and reliability that they make in their ad campaigns.
The peer-to-peer component of Brin's proposal would definitely benefit cell providers when there isn't a state of emergency. By routing voice calls from phone to phone to phone instead of through towers, it would be possible for networks to extend into the further reaches of those regions where cell coverage is still spotty or non-existent. That would certainly result in more customers, and it would definitely make it harder to snicker at the TV when AT&T promises more bars or boasts about fewer dropped calls.
For now, however, this is just an idea put out there for debate on the blogosphere. Until the government compels cellular providers to adopt this or a similar emergency backup system, we're stuck with the same infrastructure that has failed us time and time again. Fortunately, there are a couple of things you can do during the next emergency situation to help you better communicate with loved ones. The first is to try text messaging instead of calling. As we said, text messaging requires much less bandwidth than voice, and in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, was one of the only ways survivors found they could communicate. The other was push-to-talk. In the days following Katrina and the New Orleans levy breaches, Sprint Nextel users found that, though voice calling was down, they were still able to communicate via the push-to-talk walkie-talkie functions of their phones. This is because push-to-talk is not routed through cell towers, but is direct communication between two phones.
For more on the technical how-to behind Brin's proposed emergency system, read his full blog post.
Related Links:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
tom said 11:58AM on 8-03-2007
The worst part is we give susadies to the phone companies thru our phone taxes. They should be improving the service. Just look at your bill.
Reply
Jack said 1:16PM on 8-03-2007
The results of your poll question are alarming to any of us who value freedom and limited government. If people want this service and value it, then it will be advertised, priced and provided efficiently by the marketplace. The 95% of collectivists for whom every whim is the cause for another government mandate will choke the life from this society, and from this economy, which has made things like cell phones possible in the first place. There's a reason this isn't an issue in Cuba, North Korea, or any of the other statist hell-holes the left is so enamored of. The most ominous aspect of the question is the blissfully ignorant and implicit assumption that the solution lies with the state, and the ignorance of the economic and cultural cost of top down socialist mandates. PLEASE LEAVE ME AND MY FAMILY OUT OF YOUR AUTHORITARIAN CRUSADE TO "FIX" EVERY PROBLEM WITH ANOTHER ASSAULT ON OUR FREEDOM.
Reply
Sandra Finley said 2:05PM on 8-03-2007
In reference to what "Jack" says about government control, exactly what or who can fix the problem? Can he? NO, but he can complain about things. Complainers do not get results.
Someone or something has to step up to the plate and make the cellphone companies provide the service we pay for.
Reply
Terry Clayton said 3:46PM on 8-03-2007
Once again the Ham radio Community will come to the rescue when all else fails the Hams get through.
Look at www.arrl.com
Reply
Steve said 3:59PM on 8-03-2007
Switch over to T-Mobile HotSpot at Home...it will work during an emergency because it doesn't use the cellular network if your in a Wi-Fi hotspot...or just use text messaging instead it never seems to fail...
Reply
janey said 2:18AM on 8-04-2007
The reason why FEMA hasn't been bugging the FCC about an emergency wireless communications network is because it's already in the works. Hear the rumors about the FCC auctioning off the extremely valuable 700mhz spectrum? Part of that involves 20 of the 80mhz being auctioned set aside (by the FCC) to create said public safety network.
As for p2p voice technology, there's so many unknowns in the variable when it comes to something like transmitting voice that it's not feasible. Imagine using bittorrent to send a song, from your friend to you, but in between there are 50 others and the intermediaries are the only way you can get the song. You wouldn't be able to hear the whole thing from start to finish until you waited for the whole thing - some pieces may have been lost somewhere, others corrupted...some peers are slow, others aren't. Clearly this wouldn't be the best thing for what most people consider voice-based communication. It's more like listening to voicemails and replying via voicemail. On the other hand, for text messages it's perfectly feasible, although it could be a massive invasion of privacy.
Reply
TONY C said 10:11AM on 8-04-2007
Hello everyone,
This article is written without really understanding the way technology works. First of all Its like any major utilty. It works on the simple fact that only a certain percentage at once is using that particular service. For instance the Electric company, If everyone turned on there a/c at once there is a chance for a blackout. Cell phones work similiar with the fact that the cell company's may only be able to handle 80% call volume on one tower at a time. We would need 700 thousand towers in one area to handle a 1 hour bulk rush like that in an emergency. Like janey says emergency workers need a seperate freq. Thanks!
Reply
Sharon said 5:29PM on 8-04-2007
If calls are being routed, or extended through peer-to-peer, wouldn't this cause a huge problem with triangulating a location of a caller in an emergency. For example, that young girl whose remains were located from the 'pings' on her cellphone.....would those not have been diluted or changed if her phone went to another phone, and another, etc, until it reached the caller?
Reply
Mark Withers said 6:38PM on 8-04-2007
I remember when extreme weather conditions, and snow storms, where all the landline phones were in such heavy use I couldn't get dialtone. Let's face it, only so many calls can be handled ay one time no matter the network. I carry two cell phones on different networks just incase I get in a bad spot for one network. And there lots more cell phones today than there were landlines just a few years ago. The text message sounds like the best idea.
Reply
Ben said 12:47AM on 8-17-2007
One interesting note is that when the cell network failed rescue workers relied on the Minneapolis' new municipal WiFi network that was switched on early because of the bridge collapse. Look for the entry for August 8th on FutureTense http://www.publicradio.org/columns/futuretense/ for a decent "account" of what happened.
Reply
Mishaq said 10:23AM on 8-17-2007
I suppose the writers here have never heard of WPS
http://wps.ncs.gov/
Reply
hwertz said 8:33PM on 8-18-2007
WPS indeed. For those that don't follow the link, it is EXACTLY for the situation this is about. The missing piece, I have no idea how anyone actually gets a phone with WPS enabled (thus the crews in Minnesota probably not having it.) Anyway, what it does, it gives someone with a WPS phone (emergency crews and the like) priority; instead of getting an "all circuits busy", fast busy, or simply failed call, they will get first priority on the next open circuit and the call will get through.
As for the rest -- good phone companies do have contigency plans, COW (cell on wheels), generators, etc. It simply takes a while to put it in place -- it'd cost a fortune to build out every cell network with 10x the capacity it "needs" just in case an emergency happens there. (Verizon has COWs, and I think Cingular as well.) Some provider that charges $20-40 for unlimited calls... not so likely.
Finally, the FCC does have something in the works -- look up info on the 700mhz auctions. The plans are real muddled, but they're going to give a bunch of spectrum for safety use, plus at least one of the 700mhz licenses for a new provider (probably more cell phones I guess) requires some spectrum set aside for public safety plus priority use of the rest if needed.
Reply
ellenbetty said 2:05PM on 8-27-2007
Those federal phone taxes are used to expand service to under populated areas that would other wise not get phone service. As far as I know, those federal taxes are used to maintain and expand the land line phone service, not cell phone service.
While the cell phone system did quickly become over loaded, with people calling relatives who drive over that bridge, to see if they were all right, 3 people on the bridge center, that ended up in the river, were able to use their cell phones to call 911 to report the bridge failure while requesting help.
Such over loads of the phone system is why many safety exports recommend having a land line at home to make 911 calls during local over load events. I lose cell phone service every time a snow storm keeps people home.
Lack of coverage during local events is often caused by local governments that do not want new cell phone towers, that some voters view as public eye sores. I lived in a county whoses leaders had such a view. Getting permits for new cell phone towers was very hard. Plus county rules required that new cell phone towers had to be 300 feet away from any public road, adding to the cost of installing new towers. One tower had to be 300 feet high, because the county would not permit more than one cell phone tower on top of a local hill. So the next cell phone company had to build their new cell phone tower in the middle of a wooded lot in the near by valley. Such costs are pass on to cell phone users.
I now have a land line to back up my cell phone. Local land line costs me $29.95 to talk locally when the cell system is over loaded. By having just local service, with out long distance coverage, on my house phone, I do not have to pay a lot of extra federal taxes attached to long distance access.
The idea of sending text messages from one cell phone user in range of the intended receaver, using the same equipment that permits walkie-talkie transmissions sounds like a good idea. But cell phones with the ability to send local text messages to would add to the cost of the cell phone. For those of us who never send text messages, why should we pay the extra price for such software/hardware?
Reply