how-to block ads
|
voipdabbler
join:2006-04-27
Kalispell, MT
| reply to NY Tel
Re: Good for everyone - Except Landline Providers
LOL, there are still great swaths of the US that do not have cellular coverage. I know it's hard for urban dwellers to imagine, but it's true. Having lived in the mid-Atlantic area for decades, I can see how your perspective is shaped by the huge mass of crammed humanity in that region. Head west and get off the interstates and you're going to find something you're not familiar with--no bars whatsoever on your cell phone. Femtocell will not help in these areas. One town in my county, which is close to the Canadian border and has absolutely no cellular signals, has tried everything to get a cellular carrier to use the spectrum they own in the area to build at least one tower. They even tried to get Homeland Security interested since federal agents patrolling that border area are limited to radio communications only. They were unsuccessful. And there are real human consequences with no cellular coverage--the same year everyone focused on the CNET author's tragic plight in Oregon, a mother visiting her son at a boarding school in the town I mentioned got lost, made a wrong turn on a forest service road and got stuck in snow. She and her son died of hypothermia before they could be found. She had her cellphone with her, but there were just no signals.
Before landlines can be dumped, there needs to be a national discussion about the national security implications. Landlines provide the links to areas that profit-driven telcos and cellular companies don't want to touch now. (Yes, when ITT was the big monopoly, they had to put in infrastructure everywhere--they got breaks from the government to compensate them, mainly monopoly status.) You may not live in an under or non-served area, but guess what, in March of this year, the Census Bureau release data showing that rural areas are seeing higher growth rates while many regions of the extremely-dense Northeastern corridor are losing population. (Although, granted it's so over-crowded back east that it may be hard to notice a decline.) There is speculation that immigration patterns are partially responsible for the changing demographic trends. What ever the reason, we must retain connectivity throughout all regions of the country before there's ever talk of dumping landlines totally. That's going to require the government to step up to the plate somehow and dictate coverage, even if it has to become part of the licensing process. | |
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| I know it's not the solution you want to hear, but the city is free to put up it's own tower, and interface with the telephone companies. You'd make money off roaming charges.
Eventually one company or the other gets tired of it, and buys the tower and keeps the service going. | |
NY Tel
Premium
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
 ·VOIPo
| reply to voipdabbler
said by voipdabbler  :LOL, there are still great swaths of the US that do not have cellular coverage. I know it's hard for urban dwellers to imagine, but it's true. Having lived in the mid-Atlantic area for decades, I can see how your perspective is shaped by the huge mass of crammed humanity in that region. Head west and get off the interstates and you're going to find something you're not familiar with--no bars whatsoever on your cell phone. Femtocell will not help in these areas. 2 comments:
1. That's why I choose to live with the crammed mass of humanity on my 2 acre postage stamp of piece of property;
2. So the femtocell will allow you to have cell service in your home  Just don't go out with the tumblin tumbleweeds.
--
"I chose and my world was shaken, So what?
The choice may have been mistaken-The choosing was not,
You have to move on." | |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
 ·CableOne
| reply to NOCMan
said by NOCMan :I know it's not the solution you want to hear, but the city is free to put up it's own tower, and interface with the telephone companies. You'd make money off roaming charges. Actually, that sounds to me like the perfect solution. It may not provide great prices or competition, but expensive service is better than no service at all (HughesNet, anyone?). | |
voipdabbler
join:2006-04-27
Kalispell, MT
| reply to NOCMan
Well, it's a town not a city so they don't have flexibility in their budget, especially since they're in a county that's located in the middle of a national forest and the largest landowner, Uncle Sam, doesn't pay any property tax by virtue of sovereign immunity. ( Private land owners in their county only make up 8-10 percent of land holdings, but must pay all the costs for county services.) Furthermore, the spectrum is already owned by one of the major carriers, so they'd have to work out an agreement, and to date, the carrier who owns the spectrum has shown no interest in talking to the town about anything. (The spectrum auctions haven't been that well thought out, since the issue of providing actual service within certain density zones or less densely-populated regions near our southern or norther borders hasn't been addressed.) Thank goodness when the original infrastructure for POTS was built the government actually regulated industry and demanded the infrastructure be built out to serve many communities. (Yes, they gave concessions, namely monopoly status, but it was a compromise that worked to everyone's benefit.) | |
-
|
