The Inquirer-Home
Comments
Re:wind in severe storm areas

Apparently you are not aware of the fact that wind towers go offline when the speed (or force) of the wind rises above a certain threshold.
A combination of solar and wind would be best if disaster-recovery operation is the goal.

posted by : Pascal Monett, 12 December 2007 Complain about this comment
Who will pay? Profits of course.

In my opinion the cell phone companies already do a pretty good job of getting their equipment operating after a disaster. Why, because of profits. They don't want to lose revenue so they make sure people can use the equipment. This ruling just levels the playing field and sets a standard so the service will be more consistent. The profits gained will pay for it.

posted by : BobSound, 11 December 2007 Complain about this comment
All of this Disaster Preparedness

It's idiotic to assume that the telecoms infrastructure is going to survive a major disaster, like an earthquake, flood, fire, or a severe storm. If the towers get ripped down, then what? Not only will you have downed cell towers, but leaking diesel fuel, exploding batteries, etc.

This plan will do nothing to help those in need of emergency services get immediate help. There are better ways to do this.

The problem has not been technology. Rather, the problem with Katrina was not technical. It was the politicians' unwillingness (and continued unwillingness) to do anything about the plight of the poor, in New Orleans and elsewhere.

As a practical matter, if you must have some sort of backup generator tied to a tower, the best solution would be solar (or wind in severe storm areas). You'd be generating power throughout the lifetime of the cell tower, and you'd only use it all up after the disaster. Surely, the power can stay up for 24 hours while first responders are coming on to the scene?

The FCC: always the last one to the ball. Their actions will no doubt harm the interests of the telecoms. Given that, it is an interesting question whether such a plan would be beneficial if the telecoms took it upon themselves to implement it.

Yes, it would cost them mucha wonga. They'd have to raise prices/slash dividends. Also, they could market themselves as "forward thinking" and "looking out for the interests of the customer". These claims cannot be made currently. At least they're looking out for their shareholders, if no one else.

Me, I'm going HAM radio. If nothing else has been proven in this era of disasters, it's that HAM and shortwave rule the skies, once mainstream radio is swept out.

posted by : Shun, 11 December 2007 Complain about this comment
Who will pay?

And all this upgraded, power-redundant wireless is going to be completely free to the customer with all costs being absorbed by the providers, right? Right? Anybody there? Can you hear me now?

Hope you're all ready to pay out the nose for this. Yet another example of .gov interference in a supposedly free country.

posted by : Russell, 11 December 2007 Complain about this comment
Its about time

Land lines have rooms full of batteries to keep the lines in case of a power outage so people can call for help. Nice to finally see it applied to the cell phones.

posted by : ken, 11 December 2007 Complain about this comment

Backup power boom expected after FCC ruling

aboutus
Advertisement
Subscribe to INQ newsletters
Advertisement
INQ Poll

Authorities in several countries raided Megaupload recently, shut down all of its services, seized hundreds of servers and arrested several of its executives on criminal charges.

Do you think the move was justified?