
Fire shuts down cell towers in CA - colinmegill
https://mobile.twitter.com/lisamkrieger/status/1189042580685611009
======
thaumasiotes
The title is actively wrong. The tweet linked, and the news article it links
to, both finger PG&E's voluntary power shutoff as the reason the cell towers
are down. They are not down because of fire, they're down because PG&E decided
they shouldn't be up.

> Of the 874 outages, 702 were blamed on loss of power to the cell tower site.

> A few, about 60, were down due to wind or fire damage to the sites
> themselves.

~~~
pdkl95
While PG&E is responsible for a lot of things; their past decisions to not
adequately inspect/maintain transmission lines makes them responsible for a
lot of the expenses and damages caused by the resulting blackouts.

However, cell towers (and telephones in general) are important infrastructure.
They should have been designed and maintained with the _expectation_ that
power failures _will_ happen and failed safely over to battery/generator
backup power.

The traditional POTS infrastructure was[1] designed to work without power for
_weeks_. That involved no only battery backup, but also longer-lasting backup
power (e.g. big tanks of diesel) for when the batteries ran out. Cell towers
going down when the power was out for a few days is evidence that those towers
were not designed to be critical infrastructure and shouldn't be used as a
replacement for POTS or other actually-reliable communication methods.

[1] I have no idea if that reliability still exists, or if AT&T ruined that
reliability in the name of "efficiency" and profit.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> The traditional POTS infrastructure was[1] designed to work without power
> for weeks. That involved no only battery backup, but also longer-lasting
> backup power (e.g. big tanks of diesel) for when the batteries ran out.

> [1] I have no idea if that reliability still exists, or if AT&T ruined that
> reliability in the name of "efficiency" and profit.

This is addressed in the article. It's unclear to me whether AT&T lines go
down due to external power failure, but other providers don't use powered
lines:

> Residents said even their once-reliable landlines and Internet, such as
> those operated by Frontier Communications, weren’t working. Comcast/Xfinity
> also was down.

> In the era of traditional phone service, Ma Bell’s lines were themselves
> energized and very reliable.

> But companies’ transition to Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) – with
> phone calls over the Internet – is dependent on outside electricity. VOIP
> calls fail when either the company’s facility or the resident’s home lacks
> backup power.

> Comcast customers lose service where the power is out at their home, because
> the services need energy to operate, according to Comcast’s Joan Hammel.
> Comcast service also stops if power is disrupted elsewhere in the network,
> she said. Comcast’s service, like all other companies who have transitioned
> to Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) telephony, fails when either the
> company’s facility or the resident’s home lacks backup power.

> “Like all PG&E customers, we are also affected by this power shutdown, said
> Vince Bitong of AT&T. “We are aware that service for some customers may be
> affected and we continue to move quickly to keep our customers, FirstNet
> subscribers and public safety agencies connected.”

------
0b0001
Firefighters (or others) could set up a "no-frills" base station on their
truck.

These systems include a power generator, servers, and a 2G GSM base station
for ranges of about 10km.

They don't even require any Internet connection, since their only purpose is
to allow emergency calls and SMS. Any cell phone can set up an emergency call
then - no need for a special SIM card.

Vodafone has a humanitarian mission that sets up these systems all over the
world. (They're using Huawei, though)

[https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/resources/mobile-n...](https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/resources/mobile-
network-restoration-humanitarian-response/)

~~~
tinus_hn
That’s if you just ignore licensing requirements for these very crowded
frequencies.

~~~
0b0001
I'm pretty sure firefighters could get such a license in the event of
emergency -- or just operate without such a license.

[Edit: or you ask some technician of your local operator to bring the system
up :)]

~~~
tinus_hn
That same operator that brought down their own equipment for some apparently
nefarious reason?

------
sliken
And just months ago California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
decided: "However, with constantly changing technological advances, there is
no longer the same benefit to State as previously provided. Therefore, the
Department no longer financially supports HAM operators [sic] radios or
tenancy. If you desire to enter into a formal agreement to operate and
maintain said equipment, you must complete and submit attached collocation
application along with fee as outlined on page one of application. There is
cost associated with getting an agreement in place.”

So basically pay up or move out.

How exactly is the word supposed to get out in dangerous dry windy conditions
if the power is out, the cells are out, and the hams move out?

~~~
kwhitefoot
> How exactly is the word supposed to get out in dangerous dry windy
> conditions if the power is out, the cells are out, and the hams move out?

There have been attempts to create apps that allow a combination of store and
forward messaging and ad hoc network creation so that messages could be
literally carried from where there is no mobile network coverage to places
where there is or to be relayed through other devices.

Now I put on my tinfoil hat: the problem is that in densely populated areas
this would eat into the revenue that the network operator gets from SMS so no
operators have promoted the idea and of course it would be easy to make it
somewhat resistant to eavesdropping so no state will promote it either.

Actually I don't know if those things are true but it seems like a plausible
reason for the lack of peer to peer capabilities in modern smartphones.

See [https://www.computerworld.com/article/2510683/peer-to-
peer--...](https://www.computerworld.com/article/2510683/peer-to-peer--
wireless-network-could-help-in-disasters.html)

~~~
sliken
Wifi direct is becoming popular and makes this kind of thing possible. I've
also seen hardware products for similar like the gotenna. You could have a
party of people across a relatively large area (say a ski resort, trail
network, or neighborhood) and have decent async connectivity for SMS like use
between them.

Software products like Lifenet, Firechat, Bridgefy, and similar generally use
wifi-direct or bluetooth to communicate and do support store and forward.

On the amateur radio side js8call does allow forwarding through 3rd parties
and store and forward.

Granted the financial model for these kind of things is tricky, but they do
seem to be getting more popular. But sure I don't expect any cell provider to
help, and was pleasantly pleased when p2p/direct connections was added to
android.

I was pretty interested in gotenna and wanted to add a DHT and internet
gateway so that messages would be delivered globally if anyone in your mesh
had an internet connection. They rejected my idea 8-(.

------
synack
Here's the report direct from the FCC.

[https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-360482A1.pdf](https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-360482A1.pdf)

