Weak Cell Phone Coverage Is Dangerous

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Most people don’t think of things like this but poor cellular coverage can be dangerous if you are traveling and have an emergency. Most of us give it very little thought and just having a cell phone can lead to a false sense of security.

While most U.S. cities are blanketed with advanced cell phone service at least four times over, huge patches of rural America still don't have cell phone coverage. What's more, the problem could get worse before it gets better when rules requiring carriers to offer older, analog service expire early in 2008.
Click to expand...
 
Where I work there's 0 signal for any carrier. We have to drive about 5 or 6 miles before you even get a glimer of 1 bar. Another 5-6 mi puts you in decent coverage.
Where I live I only have analog, no digital. I'm sure this is true for A TON of people who are not near/in a city. I've only ever seen the EVDO on my phone come on twice in PA actually. Once was in Pitt., the other up near Lycoming Uni.

I don't carry my phone for a sense of security though. I just have it so people can get to me if they need to. If it's an emergency, my pager does a fine job of receiving things. Never been put into an emergency where I need to reach someone else though.
 
My god people, let's step back a minute and remember the time when cell phones did not exist. It's funny that an area lacking coverage is a "problem." This sounds like a Fox News Channel story. I think a bigger "problem" in low coverage areas would be the lack of emergency response people. Even if those areas had cell phone coverage, the help could be very far away. Only nerds can make a big deal out of this.
 
OnStar sattelite communications FTW!
 
Unfortunately, lack of cell phone coverage in some of the remotest places in the country can make these devices about as useful as a paperweight.
Click to expand...
I honestly wonder who purchases a cell phone thinking that there is universal coverage? All it takes is a single trip down I-76 in PA to notice that there is spotty cell phone coverage even in areas that are well traveled.

While only a quarter of the U.S. population lives in a rural area, roughly 75 percent of our country's geography is rural. Advocates for improving rural cell phone coverage say that the issue should concern not only rural residents, but everyone in the country.
Click to expand...

How surprising is it to anyone that the phone companies are cherry picking the most lucrative markets (i.e. large(r) cities)? It is also pretty clear that "providing universal coverage" will be extremely expensive. Say the phone companies are covering the 25% of the USA that contain 75% of the population. The price for cell service is still too high (imho). I do not even want to think the amount of subsidies that phone companies will need to earn from everyone in order to cover the last 25% of the population.

If we look at history and how well the whole "universal service" idea worked for land line phone, I think it is a pretty safe bet that any "cell phone universal service" is doomed as well.

Also, does anyone remember Iridium? They provide near spotless coverage of the USA already. If you really need that "emergency" phone, buy one of theirs.
 
Eulogy said:
Where I work there's 0 signal for any carrier. We have to drive about 5 or 6 miles before you even get a glimer of 1 bar.
Click to expand...

Sweet, we need to build a movie theater RIGHT THERE in that exact location! A fine example of turning a problem into a solution...no more phone calls during movies! ;)
 
The "bigger" problem is some providers phasing out 1G and 2G tech...analog cellular comm systems. No fancy Code Division or Time Division to share the finite RF spectrum alloted to cellular phones, but old late 80s/early 90s analog tech had the range, but sounded like shit.

But who cares? As long as you get the part of "EMERGENCY. HELP. HERE" out, doesn't really matter. New cell towers have no 1G/2G legacy equipment mounted. :(
 
I didn't die before I had a cellphone, and I won't die now that I have one. 'Nuff said. Those who rely on their cell phones for security for ANY reason aren't my kind of people.

They're convenient, but they don't change flat tires or control your car when you have a blowout.
 
Ockie said:
OnStar sattelite communications FTW!
Click to expand...


Sorry, wrong. OnStar only uses satellites so the car can get its position. You need to be in a cellular coverage area for you to contact OnStar service or for them to know where you are.

Most earlier OnStar systems use Analog only cellular networks which at one time had the most coverage but are now being phased out. At some point in the near future most first generation OnStar systems will no longer work.


I never depend on my phone as an emergency device when traveling. I am painfully aware of how many gaps there are in coverage in the middle of no where or in mountain areas.

Poor coverage is not dangerous, the lack of common sense in North America IS!
 
BarneyGumble said:
My god people, let's step back a minute and remember the time when cell phones did not exist. It's funny that an area lacking coverage is a "problem." This sounds like a Fox News Channel story. I think a bigger "problem" in low coverage areas would be the lack of emergency response people. Even if those areas had cell phone coverage, the help could be very far away. Only nerds can make a big deal out of this.
Click to expand...

I purchased a cell phone 7 years ago, for the sole reason that payphones were getting too expensive to use. Try finding a payphone now. It is impossible. And when you do happen upon one, the cost to use it is very high; besides, who still carries cash, much less coin.

The lack of emergency personnel is a fact of life in rural states. In mountain/desert states, the problem is much worse.
 
Even though the coverage is really good where I live, it doesn't make me feel any more secure.... .... the tire iron under the seat does!
 
JohnnyH24 said:
I purchased a cell phone 7 years ago, for the sole reason that payphones were getting too expensive to use. Try finding a payphone now. It is impossible. And when you do happen upon one, the cost to use it is very high; besides, who still carries cash, much less coin.
Click to expand...


If you are in trouble I don't think the cost of a short call is going to be your first concern. Second I am positive you can make a collect call from any pay phone without needing any coin. Call a friend collect and get them to send you help.

I know in the Canadian Rockies there are emergency call boxes along the rout just in case you need them.

I would use my own phone if it worked, but again I don't think a lack of cell coverage make danger, it is just something you should consider before traveling! O and maybe informing someone of your route and planned arrival time in case you aren't able to signal help because you went off the road and are pinned in your car. A cell phone will not help you if it was flung free of the vehicular an you can't reach it. Ganted if you have OnStar and are in a coverage air they would be notified that your airbag was deployed.
 
you know... I remember travelling all over hell and creation and back in a '66 VW bus without a cell phone... yep, just the two of us and our cat (he loved to travel) roaming all over the northwest. Had a tool box, few spare parts, camping gear, we were good. Cell phones were outrageously costly at the time. We had issues now and then, but never did anything stupid or put ourselves so far away from help that it put us in danger. It's called common sense.
Just because someone has a cell-phone doesn't mean you get coverage everywhere all the time. Just because you have one doesn't mean you can call for help. I see it as a great way to clean out the gene pool a little bit... ;)


 
Next that you know, some jerkwad will demand the GOVERNMENT mandate universal coverage. :mad:
 
The bigger issue with this article concerns the fact that FOIA access to the report is being restricted, and one of the actual government anti-terrorism folks is actually admitting that the reason it's not being released is modivated by commercial interests, and not anything actually security related.

Considering the interesting coverage maps many providers have on their sales and marketing sites and literature, where some areas are colored in completely with a highlight of coverage area, and yet there are outage spots in some areas supposedly covered, a government document stating as much would go a long way for a consumer class action against a large carrier. With the government counting on the income of the private industries for the health of the nation, this is just one of many areas of conflict of interest concerning things like telecommunications infrastructure.

Imagine if Verizon began to advertise that they were the "best provider, according to the US government!" and this report sent the stock prices of other carriers down the tubes. This is a double edged sword, and an unfortunate backlash of telecommunication "deregulation" where there are no national, federally enforceable standards for these newer technologies.
 
Globalstar makes good satellite phone equipment with global coverage. It is just a little on the pricey side. I tried it out at Bass Pro Shop when I was thinking about getting it because I do a lot of traveling in areas with zero cell coverage. Ended up not getting it because it was more money than I wanted to spend.
 
Lazybones said:
Sorry, wrong. OnStar only uses satellites so the car can get its position. You need to be in a cellular coverage area for you to contact OnStar service or for them to know where you are.

Most earlier OnStar systems use Analog only cellular networks which at one time had the most coverage but are now being phased out. At some point in the near future most first generation OnStar systems will no longer work.


I never depend on my phone as an emergency device when traveling. I am painfully aware of how many gaps there are in coverage in the middle of no where or in mountain areas.

Poor coverage is not dangerous, the lack of common sense in North America IS!
Click to expand...


How am I wrong? :rolleyes: Did I say you have to use sattelite for hands free driving?

Onstar uses GPS for positioning for emergency responders, uses cellular technology for the stress signal.. the signal is much stronger than that of a cellular phone and puses 3 watts vs a standard .6 watts of a normal cellphone... also better antenna mounting and position increases signal strength, with the broad cellular dual mode support and network support, I doubt you are going to get a lack of communication distress signal window ;)
 
Ockie said:
How am I wrong? :rolleyes: Did I say you have to use sattelite for hands free driving?

Onstar uses GPS for positioning for emergency responders, uses cellular technology for the stress signal.. the signal is much stronger than that of a cellular phone and puses 3 watts vs a standard .6 watts of a normal cellphone... also better antenna mounting and position increases signal strength, with the broad cellular dual mode support and network support, I doubt you are going to get a lack of communication distress signal window ;)
Click to expand...
http://www.howstuffworks.com/onstar.htm

Higher power does not mean you will always have coverage. OnStar still depends on cellular communication for you to contact the service for help, and for them to get your location.

If you are driving one of the first OnStar vehicles with the analog only system, your coverage will begin to shrink, if it already hasn't as providers take down analogue towers and digital has become dominant.

The places without cellular coverage are also the ones often least traveled.. My point is that you shouldn't depend on these systems as your only life line and plan.
 
Lazybones said:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/onstar.htm

Higher power does not mean you will always have coverage. OnStar still depends on cellular communication for you to contact the service for help, and for them to get your location.

If you are driving one of the first OnStar vehicles with the analog only system, your coverage will begin to shrink, if it already hasn't as providers take down analogue towers and digital has become dominant.

The places without cellular coverage are also the ones often least traveled.. My point is that you shouldn't depend on these systems as your only life line and plan.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure I know about onstars abilities, my company designed them.
 
Ockie said:
I'm pretty sure I know about onstars abilities, my company designed them.
Click to expand...


I didn't state that anything you said was wrong. However I am not satisfied with your assertion that a) OnStar will work anywhere, or b) that there might be a problem for those early analogue units (No OnStar for pre 2002 cars ).

I do however have to admit the coverage map is impressive. However so are the ones claimed by most cellular providers, and we know how accurate those are.

Does this make OnStar less of a great feature? No, it is a GREAT FEATURE that can save lives. However this sometimes negates common sense, as some people will set off unprepared assuming that anything goes wrong they can just hit a button and sit in a warm car and wait.
 
Lazybones said:
I didn't state that anything you said was wrong. However I am not satisfied with your assertion that a) OnStar will work anywhere, or b) that there might be a problem for those early analogue units (No OnStar for pre 2002 cars ).

I do however have to admit the coverage map is impressive. However so are the ones claimed by most cellular providers, and we know how accurate those are.

Does this make OnStar less of a great feature? No, it is a GREAT FEATURE that can save lives. However this sometimes negates common sense, as some people will set off unprepared assuming that anything goes wrong they can just hit a button and sit in a warm car and wait.
Click to expand...


I never said onstar will work anyware nor did I say that all onstar cars will work perfectly including that of the older generation. Nor did I say that this should be the replacement for common sense.

I simply said "Onstar Sattelite communications FTW", was I accurate in my expression, yes, ...to what degree? Well thats for you to interpret.

Now, as for the article and for debatable issue, common sense isn't going to help you when you slid off the road and wrapped your car around a tree... nor is a cellphone at that time. So you can interpret it as you please, however, I didn't disagree with you, you were the one misinterpreting onstar as the final and only solution to things... I simply just said "FTW".

But if you travel to remote locations or off road, then you shouldn't expect any kind of ground based communication to help you if you do run into issues. Common sense should take presidence in this article but it does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top