WiFi vs Cell Networks Question

If disaster strikes which one do you bet on for getting back up and usable faster?

Inspired by:

“Oftentimes, many of us immersed in Bay Area tech look straight for the shiny solutions, regardless of how ineffective they might be when the infrastructure collapses” – Eric Rice

4 comments

Peter F says:

July 30, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Neither. We need a satellite infrastructure for disaster. I’ve got a paper I downloaded around here if you’re interested (and I can find it).

Without satellite, it’s really a crapshoot which would work.
Garrick Van Buren says:

July 30, 2007 at 5:50 pm

Peter, good point. It’s the crapshoot I’m interested in. WiFi, citizens have a shot at bootstrapping. I’m not sure if the potential exists for other communication methods.
Peter F says:

July 30, 2007 at 10:14 pm

You’re right about the bootstrapping, Garrick, and it did happen in NOLA after Katrina. Community Wireless types got their and got a mesh of sorts going. Certainly easier than trying to set up ad hoc cell towers, I would think!

Interesting and related point, the FCC ruled that emergency wireless networks for disaster relief are still subject to CALEA (http://urltea.com/13n5) which would make it pretty difficult for community wireless activists to create compliant networks.
Garrick Van Buren says:

July 30, 2007 at 10:28 pm

Hmmmm. So, if a US community goes dark and the fastest way to get reconnected to the rest of the nation is a cobbled-together mesh, the implementors could be taken to court because the emergency network wasn’t CALEA-compliant? Unhelpful.

Comments are closed.