http://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/ Switched Comments for Bridge Collapse: Why Did Cell Phones Fail? http://www.switched.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.switched.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/http://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/
This is not true. Sprint Nextel has a separate type of network for PTT that uses the same cellular towers but with different equipment. There is no "direct communication" between two cell phones in this manner. The reason people were able to use PTT instead of voice is because the PTT network isn't as saturate as voice networks, and because it has a more dependable infrastructure.]]>Nov 29th 2009 8:57PMhttp://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/http://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/Aug 3rd 2007 11:58AMhttp://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/http://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/Aug 4th 2007 5:29PMhttp://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/http://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/Aug 3rd 2007 1:16PMhttp://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/http://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/Someone or something has to step up to the plate and make the cellphone companies provide the service we pay for.]]>Aug 3rd 2007 2:05PMhttp://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/http://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/Look at www.arrl.com ]]>Aug 3rd 2007 3:46PMhttp://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/http://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/Aug 3rd 2007 3:59PMhttp://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/http://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/Aug 4th 2007 6:38PMhttp://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/http://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/
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.]]>Aug 4th 2007 2:18AMhttp://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/http://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/ 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!]]>Aug 4th 2007 10:11AMhttp://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/http://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/
http://wps.ncs.gov/]]>Aug 17th 2007 10:23AMhttp://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/http://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/http://www.publicradio.org/columns/futuretense/ for a decent "account" of what happened.]]>Aug 17th 2007 12:47AMhttp://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/http://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/
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.





]]>Aug 18th 2007 8:33PMhttp://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/http://www.switched.com/2007/08/03/bridge-collapse-why-did-cell-phones-fail/
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? ]]>Aug 27th 2007 2:05PM