Cell sites aren't repeaters. Repeaters are simple.
As you know, repeaters take a signal in, and retransmit it. Cell sites connect cellular phones via radio to the rest of the world.
Cell sites are connected back to a switch, usually via a T1, DS3, or some sort of optical link. The site needs to be built in the switch database, and the switch needs to know about the adjacent cells. The site also needs quite a bit more commercial power than a ham repeater.
The difficult part is providing enough bandwidth back to the switch, and the fact that all of the central offices, possibly including the cellular switch in the area, are down, and all the cables are submerged.
Non-telco cell companies depend on the local telco to get site signals back to the public telephone network. Also, most towers are now collocated. Lose a tower, lose all of the brands on it in that area.
| On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 00:58:49 -0500, "Morris Dovey" | wrote: | || Or is it only this quick and easy for amateurs? | | Cell sites aren't repeaters. Repeaters are simple. | | As you know, repeaters take a signal in, and retransmit it. Cell | sites connect cellular phones via radio to the rest of the world. | | Cell sites are connected back to a switch, usually via a T1, DS3, or | some sort of optical link. The site needs to be built in the switch | database, and the switch needs to know about the adjacent cells. | The site also needs quite a bit more commercial power than a ham | repeater. | | The difficult part is providing enough bandwidth back to the switch, | and the fact that all of the central offices, possibly including the | cellular switch in the area, are down, and all the cables are | submerged. | | Non-telco cell companies depend on the local telco to get site | signals back to the public telephone network. Also, most towers | are now collocated. Lose a tower, lose all of the brands on it in | that area.
Yuppers - I understand the difference in circuit complexities.
As a first response measure, an isolated (independent) cell that connects all calls to an EOC "help desk" would be a major improvement over no communications at all in the initial period following a disaster. Full-feature operation for health and welfare traffic can wait a bit longer than a family trapped in their attic by rising floodwater.
FEMA maintains multi-mode/multi-channel communications centers in at least state capitols (I was the volunteer operator for the one in Des Moines during our '93 flood) that are capable of providing the initial essential disaster communications with the outside world. These, too, are more complex than most ham stations but were pre-packaged in a single rack unit that could be relocated by truck or helicopter - and even operated by people without equipment-specific training.
A ham repeater doesn't require (isn't allowed) much power and most that I've seen used 12V auto/truck batteries for immediate backup - does a cell site require more than the 2-5kW available from a small portable generator?
Predicting that a catastrophe will hit doesn't change the difficulty of getting into the region to pluck people off of rooftops or reduce the danger posed by snipers.
| Dave Balderstone wrote: | || In article , Ba r r y || wrote: || || ||| 1.) Shear magnitude. It's not just New Orleans that's in trouble. || || || Bull. This was predicted YEARS ago. || || It's not like we're talking about a comet striking the gulf. We're || talking about a cat 4 hurricane. || || You can't keep a straight face and tell me this is a surprise. || || Can you? || | Predicting that a catastrophe will hit doesn't change the | difficulty of getting into the region to pluck people off of | rooftops or reduce the danger posed by snipers.
So?
Difficulty simply means that more effort, persistance, and determination are required to get the job done.
Danger simply means that more courage is needed to do the job.
If you don't think those people are worth the effort, I disagree. If you think the danger is too great, then make it possible for /me/ to go help get the job done - not that I wouldn't be scared spitless; but because I'd rather accept the danger than have those people die.
FWIW, being shot *at* doesn't mean becoming a casualty.
Predicting that a disaster *will* hit does not help in identifying *when* it will hit. Yes, Katrina was a large storm that gave some warning (days), but as far as the infrastructure changes to the levees, the fact that a cat
4 hurricane would hit the last week of August, 2005 was neither known nor knowable.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Well, it also means it takes resources away from those who need it and are appreciative of the efforts--raw "courage" is hardly a replacement for common sense. It won't help a thing for a rescuer to be lost just to show he has "courage".
Don't believe there's more than the proverbial 1 in a million who actually think that. There are some who (like I) think that those who make providing help a risk to the helper aren't worth nearly the effort that those who don't are...
Well, get on your horse and get down there then...I'm sure there are plenty of local churches, etc., in the locality that have many demands that volunteers could help.
Not necessarily, but is it really worth the risk when there are a lot of others who aren't shooting to help? I frankly don't think so.
Of course, but irrelevant. The time to start reinforcing levees is when you find they are not good enough to prevent disaster hen it strikes, and that point had (as far as I gather from assorted readings) been reached years ago.
But shomehow areas the are likely to be flooded seem to be very attractive building grounds and protection seems always feeble, in Bavaria for example some levees had ben raised after the 1999 floods to be safe up to that level, but the 2005 floods were higher still... So flood protection blunders are common all over the world.
| Morris Dovey wrote: | ... || Danger simply means that more courage is needed to do the job. | | Well, it also means it takes resources away from those who need it | and are appreciative of the efforts--raw "courage" is hardly a | replacement for common sense. It won't help a thing for a rescuer | to be lost just to show he has "courage".
I think you're partially right. I don't think you're correct in making the assumption that the effort will necessarily (or has a high probablility) of producing a worst-case result. It's not about showing courage - it's about using it to save lives that are already beeing lost.
|| If you don't think those people are worth the effort, I disagree. | | Don't believe there's more than the proverbial 1 in a million who | actually think that. There are some who (like I) think that those | who make providing help a risk to the helper aren't worth nearly | the effort that those who don't are...
We're in complete argreement here. I'm just not willing to let the less worthy prevent saving the more worthy - and if I had my druthers, I'd still prefer that even the less worthy survived.
|| you think the danger is too great, then make it possible for /me/ || to go help get the job done - not that I wouldn't be scared || spitless; but because I'd rather accept the danger than have those || people die. | | Well, get on your horse and get down there then...I'm sure there are | plenty of local churches, etc., in the locality that have many | demands that volunteers could help.
I've already sent what those people said they wanted from me.
| || FWIW, being shot *at* doesn't mean becoming a casualty. | | Not necessarily, but is it really worth the risk when there are a | lot of others who aren't shooting to help? I frankly don't think | so.
It sounds like you're saying that it isn't worth the risk to save the shooters. I don't have a problem with that. My point is that I think it's worth some amount of risk to save the non-shooters - who aren't being saved because somebody, or a number of somebodies, think lives should only be saved in a risk-free (or extremely low-risk) environment.
In a fantasy world where you build for every exigency regardless of cost, your analysis may have some relevance. I watched a briefing by Lt. Gen. Stroud(?), the commander of the Corps of Engineers. His information was illuminating. The levees had been built to withstand a Category 3 hurricane.
While you may say, "well, that's dumb, what about a Category 5 or at the very least a Category 4, which is what hit there?" the fact of the matter according to the statistics he cited was that Category 3 met
99.5% of the probability of an event.
Now the big question is, particularly for those who are constantly complaining about where their tax dollars are going, what is the cost to build the levees to even .1% higher a level of capacity or even more, to take it from Category 3 to Category 4 capability?
And then, of course, if they were built to Category 4 standards (at tremendous expense) what kind of caterwauling would we hear when (not if) a Category 5 hurricane hit?
Planning is done considering a cutoff of 100 year or 500 year events. That means that a statistically huge percent of the structure will survive, but that a cost/benefit analysis dictates that it is not feasible to build beyond a 100 year event capacity (not necessarily the exact terms, but the principle is correct).
Now, take emergency preparedness planning and plug it into the same model. Do you prepare for the 500 year event? Do you prepare for the
100 year event? Can you predict consequences of either? Even the planning costs money, the physical preparedness (stockpiling of medical supplies, foodstuffs, fuel, etc.) costs money. How much is the taxpayer willing to spend?
It sure is easy to second guess and run the show from the sidelines with no accountability and no possibility of error, but real world civil engineering and civic management is an entirely different prospect. Shoot, in civic management, you aren't even guaranteed you'll be able to work on the project past the next election.
But calling responsible planning and construction to a standard that is a tolerable balance in comparison to cost a blunder is the worst kind of Monday morning negative thinking.
Sure, I'd prefer both, but I'm not going to lose much sleep over the guilty.
...
That's all one can do...sometimes things out of our individual "hands-on" hands...
I don't think anybody's really saying that--and if that's what you intended, I apologize for the snitty tone previously as I didn't get that.
I do think that it makes sense to go places that are less risky first as it takes more resources to do the other safely. I don't think it's reasonable to expect rescuers to have to risk life and limb beyond the risks they're already taking w/o supporting protection.
That some innocent thus suffer is unfortunate, but the sad truth is that most victims of thugs are the innocent.
It's almost Steinbeckien in construction, but he's saying that the level of design that was used covered a high proportion of the expected events at a cost that was considered justifiable. To then say that not having built to the 99.99% level after the fact is Monday morning quarterbacking.
That get close, LRod?
(I tend to write such stuff, too...) :) (or maybe :(, I don't know)
I'm remiss in not having sung the praise of the "Coasties" before now.
In a place and time where so much has gone so badly and been so badly handled, the Coast Guard seems to have its act together - and appears to be doing a magnificent, heroic job.
|| I've already sent what those people said they wanted from me. | | That's all one can do...sometimes things out of our individual | "hands-on" hands...
Yes, I know - but I don't have to like it that way...
|| It sounds like you're saying that it isn't worth the risk to save || the shooters. I don't have a problem with that. My point is that I || think it's worth some amount of risk to save the non-shooters - || who aren't being saved because somebody, or a number of || somebodies, think lives should only be saved in a risk-free (or || extremely low-risk) environment. | | I don't think anybody's really saying that--and if that's what you | intended, I apologize for the snitty tone previously as I didn't get | that.
No apology needed. I realized after sending that I might have sounded self-righteous. That wasn't the spirit in which I wrote. I do believe that it's wrong to ask someone else to do something I'd be unwilling to do myself. If it came down to me or nobody, it'd have to be me.
| I do think that it makes sense to go places that are less risky | first as it takes more resources to do the other safely. I don't | think it's reasonable to expect rescuers to have to risk life and | limb beyond the risks they're already taking w/o supporting | protection.
This makes me _really_ uncomfortable - it's too close to leaving wounded on the battlefield - still more uncomfortable when I see small children on those rooftops. I can't imagine that it's any more comfortable for the rescue personnel on scene.
| That some innocent thus suffer is unfortunate, but the sad truth is | that most victims of thugs are the innocent.
Sorry, guys. Yes, Duane had it pretty much right. Let me add some punctuation and artificial pauses for emphasis.
Naming as a blunder, however, responsible planning, and construction to a standard, which yields a tolerable balance-in-comparison-to-cost, is the worst kind of Monday morning negative thinking.
Better?
Sorry, it was plain as day to me when I was pecking it out, but I can see that it was a tester.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.