Power outrages

Last week's column about the reliability of wireless networks in emergency scenarios (See the August 27, 2003, column How good should wireless be?)  elicited the most feedback Telephony OnlineUpdate has ever received. Responses ran the gamut: concern about under-engineered backup power systems, ire over the public's unreasonable expectations about wireless performance, varying opinions about universal service and whether the wireless sector should be held to the same performance requirements as wireline, and on and on.

In the interest of keeping the dialog going--and since Telephony OnlineUpdate was unable to honor the Labor Day tradition of enjoying a day of rest (thanks to a list of menial household chores left on the counter by Mrs. TOU)—we hereby present the columnist's equivalent of a day of rest: the reader mailbag.

"Every provider in this industry has a huge obligation to maintain service for their customers, even during power outages. The assumption that back-up power or public power independence is not necessary is a huge mistake. This isn't just an emergency issue; that alone should have shaken the boots of most providers. It certainly has unnerved the public."

"One element which wasn't discussed is the wireless' dependence on the wireline infrastructure to link it to the PSTN. Remember, if the wireline service which provides the link to cell sites goes down, so too will the cell sites. If the wireless community is desirous to be an independent alternative to the wired services, it may need to divest itself on its reliance on that legacy network."

"I think you might be overestimating the revenue upside to system availability during an emergency. While only a really rigorous examination of a specific instance (NYC is a good one) would reveal the answer, my perception is that many if not most popularly sold rate plans these days have huge minute buckets attached to them. For a fixed monthly fee, customers often have thousands of minutes at their disposal, many of them during 'off peak' hours. Anyone who has tried to make a call in any large city from 8 PM to midnight knows the sound of 'system busy.' Providers have little financial incentive to install more channels to capture that traffic."

"It is worth pointing out that some wireless carriers are receiving Universal Service support for customers captured from the wireline industry without being held to the same costly obligations to which you refer. On top of that, they are receiving that support based on the costs of the incumbent wireline carrier that they replace without having to invest in the infrastructure necessary to meet the lifeline standards the wireline carrier is obligated to. One of these is an adequate backup power system. Another is the requirement to give customers 'equal access' to their long distance carrier of choice. Still one more is the 'carrier-of-last-resort' obligation. If the wireless carrier finds it too expensive to serve a given customer or group of customers because of coverage problems, they simply tell those customers to go to the wireline company for service. The wireline carrier, because of the 'carrier-of-last-resort' obligation, has no choice but to make the investment."

"An increasing population is discontinuing the use of their wireline service and are relying only on the use of their wireless service as their main mode of connectivity. As that migration is well underway, there is an expectation by these subscribers that wireless service is and should be as reliable and available as wireline. Isn't it the challenge of the subscribers to not only expect this level of service, but demand it?"

"In your article you pointed out how unreliable as the wireless industry was during the blackout you failed to address the unreliability of IP telephony through cable modems. What percentage of IP users were able to call out especially in cases of emergencies during the power outage? The lifeline telephone service provided by the RBOCs is functional, reliable and cost effective, especially when its needed the most."

"The wireless phone industry was always intended to be for convenience and a mobile alternative to the hardline. It was never intended to be a replacement or lifeline for others. To hold it to that standard could shake the more affordable aspect of wireless communication."

"You didn't mention the fact that wireless carriers are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in universal service funding today, based on the portability of universal service created by the Telecom Act. Your article raises the exact question: What are they getting the money for? If they don't have the additional obligations that come with being a true provider of universal service, such as being there when the public needs them, why on earth is this money being thrown down the drain?"

"Consumers have come to view their wireless phones as an end all solution to the problem of not being able to get in touch with anyone anytime they want to. It doesn't matter if it is during a crisis like the blackout or just driving from the office to home; the consumer wants to call someone and they want to call them now."

"Many wireless carriers are suggesting that people cut the cord & use wireless service as their only phone. Additionally, many of these carriers are successfully petitioning for ETC (eligible telecom carrier) status that makes them eligible to collect universal service funding for the same customers served by the incumbent LECs. This money is SUPPOSED to be used to provide lifeline service (wireline OR its equivalent). I realize the 'cut the cord' argument is marketing noise from these carriers. The ETC play is a strategic revenue building move with buy-in from both legislative & regulatory entities at least partially based on the aforementioned marketing pitch & the fervor to introduce competition. Based on all this, why SHOULDN'T we expect lifeline service from these folks? Those wireless carriers can't be taking universal service money and providing anything less than lifeline service could they?"

"Any more regulations imposed on wireless will result in less service available in fewer areas so just maybe the carriers ought to lower some expectations up-front, and the public ought to accept that nothing is going to be 100% all the time everywhere, quit complaining about it when the service comes up short for them in a crisis, and marvel at just how far we have come in such a short amount of time."

E-mail me at jmeyers@primediabusiness.com.