Re: FCC needs to revisit cellular robustness
- From: "Scott" <how.do@xxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:09:35 -0600
<dmartin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >PS the existing AMPS (analog) system likely made it through the whole
> >Katrina episode. Unfortunately few have phones that'll do analog
> >anymore. Maybe the FCC should require it?
> "You really do not know do you?"
> Nope, but I'm willing to bet.
> If I'm not mistaken, AMPS has signifcantly greater coverage per tower
> than does typical digital services.
> My 3 watt bag phone has much greater area coverage than does my lower
> power gsm Samsung x427m. I believe this is in part due to greater area
> coverage of AMPS towers.
> "Why should the FCC mandate that an outdated
> technology be resurected? "
> If it is a cost effective way to increase coverage in disaster
> situations it should be considered.
Why didn't you respond to the rest of the post, as it highlighted the
problem with your mandate- no cellular technology will work when the towers
have either been ripped out of the ground or their generators and switches
are sitting in ten feet of water. The area of coverage becomes zero in
these conditions, even for your beloved flintstone phone.
- Prev by Date: Re: Cingular Switching from GSM a Rumor?
- Next by Date: Re: Can't believe the trolls haven't posted this ...
- Previous by thread: Re: FCC needs to revisit cellular robustness
- Next by thread: Re: FCC needs to revisit cellular robustness