Overwhelmed mobile netowrks
August 3rd, 2007 |Cell-phone providers acknowledged that the call volumes overwhelmed their networks in the area around the bridge collapse, but they took issue with the idea that they’re not up to dealing with a crisis.
The networks got so congested in Minneapolis after the bridge collapse that Verizon and T-Mobile brought in mobile network stations, mounted on trucks, to handle the extra capacity. But many still were not able to get through.
So what to do when you need to let someone know you are ok and can’t get through with a call? Text messaging.
Cell-phone networks are set up in such a way that text messages can piggyback on the streams of voice data traffic bouncing around the system. The digital messages, which amount to mere dozens or hundreds of bytes, can be slipped into the gaps in that stream.
“I’m ok, will call soon.”
That’s all you need to send to let someone know that you are alive.
Of course, unlike Super-Rookie’s brother, you have to remember that someone out there might be worrying about you and turn on your damn phone.
11 Responses to “Overwhelmed mobile netowrks”
The network didn’t immediately go down, as I got an exasperated call from my mom on the way home from work maybe 20 minutes after the fact, realized my wife was headed in the same direction, and immediately got through to her. A few minutes later… nothing but SMS was working to/from her phone, with a bit of delay, but much better than nothing.
I was at the Happy Gnome. Voice and GPRS were just fine there.
I don’t think it’s acceptable for cell companies not to have the capacity to deal with such a situation. Subscibers pay for service, regardless of call volume. With all the talk about the need to shore up the road/bridge infrastructure in our country, hopefully some pressure will be put on the communications industry to shore up their infrastructure as well.
Hmm… I didn’t get my text messages for hours after. One I didn’t get until the next morning. Guess they didn’t slip through the cracks.
I don’t think it’s acceptable for cell companies not to have the capacity to deal with such a situation. Subscibers pay for service, regardless of call volume. With all the talk about the need to shore up the road/bridge infrastructure in our country, hopefully some pressure will be put on the communications industry to shore up their infrastructure as well.
This assumes cell companies are running some kind of public service. They’re not. Increasing infrastructure so that everyone could talk on their cell phones at the same time would be very expensive, and I doubt our airwaves would even have the capacity. FCC allotments of bandwidth are already becoming extremely valuable. To be able to do this would require a huge commitment on the part of the FCC in cooperation with cell companies, with big cell rate increases or subsidies from the government (read: tax increase). I’m not saying this shouldn’t be considered, but I certainly don’t blame cell companies for running their business and pricing their service for the volume expected for 99.9% of the time.
get nextel.
direct connect worked great.
This assumes cell companies are running some kind of public service. They’re not.
They’re not? Better scrap that whole 911 emergency call center plan, then. I’m going to send my distress calls via smokesignals from now on.
Better scrap that whole 911 emergency call center plan, then. I’m going to send my distress calls via smokesignals from now on.
That’s my point. To make such a vast amount of bandwidth available would take government (FCC) regulation and a tax on cell bills just like the 911 tax. Except this tax would be huge. This is what the government’s for, the free market (obviously) doesn’t support it and it really isn’t the cell companies’ responsibility. Again, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered, it just means you can’t blame the cell companies.
This is what the government’s for
You mean besides fingerpointing and photo ops?
let’s not forget cost-cutting as the populaces expense!
and the sex and bribery scandals.