Re: frugal "emergency" cell phone

On 3 Dec 2003 05:31:35 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David L) wrote:

Hi David,

>I've been able to get cell phone coverage in very remote areas. The
>cellular tower might be 15 or 20 miles away. 

It appears that our definitions of *remote* vary quite a lot. Here in
the West, that refers to areas far greater than 15-20 miles without
cellular service. The problem is simply that the cell phone companies
usually put their repeaters in places where there are concentrations
of people. There are vast stretches here where population is scant.

>There are nummerous
>examples of peoples lifes being saved by either calling for help or
>quickly reporting a wreck and getting help. It's much easier to report
>a road hazard or drunken driver. "Boosted"cll phones can also work
>quite some distance off shore and in lakes to summon help for boaters.

All this may be true, but quite beyond the scope of usage Larisa and I
were discussing. In truly remote places (my definition) there are
precious few cell repeaters and one out there might only provide
service using an incompatible protocol. The system has lots of holes.

>Have to agree, cell phone use while driving can be very dangerous. I
>often wish talking while driving was outlawed, like they are in many
>other countries, especially after some idiots have nearly killed me,
>blowing through red lights...

That's my point. The question is then whether the casualties produced
by the huge numbers of people who irresponsibility chit-chat while
driving outweigh the vastly fewer cases where a cell phone is used for
emergencies in a responsible manner. The answer is obvious, to me.

>..Calls can usually be made safely, when pulled over and stopped... 

The problem here is that they are rarely used in this manner. 

>Come on...a cell phone is a little box that lets the user talk from
>(67% ?) of the US, for about $50 a year, to anyone else on the planet,
>who has a phone. That's pretty good odds and a very low cost for a
>personal, communications safety device.

You have commingled two different subjects here. As a low-cost (but
hardly frugal) personal communications device, they are great. As a
safety device, as now used, I believe that they are counterproductive.

>For the other 33%, a satellite phone or an emergency beacon may
>useful. Though not as frugal as a cheap cell phone plan, under
>emergency circumstances, it may become the bargain of a lifetime.

DW and I  have used personal communications devices for safety reasons
in remote areas using mountaintop amateur radio repeaters for more
than 30 years, so I understand their value. But again, cell phones are
not now usually used that way.

>Don't know if having a cell phone would have prevented the rape and
>murder of a friend, when her car broke down... but a women stranded on
>a roadside, depending on help from passing motorists, faces potential
>threats which most men will never encounter.

Sorry to hear about your friend. My wife almost never ventures into
remote areas alone. I do, but then I carry a gun. But personal safety
is the one legitimate use of devices such as cell phones that I
heartily endorse... if only they were only used for that purpose.


Regards,


Caveat