Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"

Ann wrote:
<SNIP>

Since the wireless carriers are only required to locate within 100 meters,
the technology isn't as accurate as land line Caller-ID in high population
density areas. But for someone trapped in a car that's run off the road
or a farmer, hiker, hunter, etc having a heart attack in a rural area, 100
meters is close.


Without having the phone receive GPS satellite signals so it can "know" where it is and tell the nearest tower[1] when it asks, the ability to locate a phone depends on the range of the cell tower. Most cell towers have 3 antennae each of which handles 120 degrees of arc and out to the range of the tower. In urban environments, the number of towers is relatively higher and the antennae are configured to point more "down" than "out". This prevents a tower from being overloaded. In more rural areas, the range is often greater. So if the phone can't say "I'm at GPS location gridX, gridY" the best the tower can do is to locate the sector the particular antenna the signal is being handled by and say "That phone is somewhere in this area."[2]


[1] Towers don't have to be on towers, many are on buildings.
[2] I learned all of this while on a jury where the location of the defendant's cell phone over time was used to match up with other evidence which indicated that the person who stole the car from location A and abandoned the car at location B and the cell phone which was near point A at the time the car was stolen was later at point B where the car was recovered. By itself it wouldn't have been compelling evidence but it supported other evidence.
--
They're locking them up today they're throwing away the key
I wonder who it'll be tomorrow you or me.
.