Hacker News Reader

Comment by mehrdadn | Hacker News Reader

> First responders support the plans

Why can't they just put towers that allow emergency calls only?

The ROI on that seems pretty bleak from a business perspective. Without paying customers’ usage to bankroll the buildout, I find it highly doubtful that any carrier would agree to emergency-use only stations.

When you make an emergency call on a GSM network it specifially uses the tower which provides the best signal, which may be on a different carrier. In most countries you don’t even need a SIM card to make an emergency call.

My point is there is no technical reason why the emergency sevices couldn’t put up towers for 911 calls only.

I think the argument is that it's not economical to set up towers only for emergencies. Technically no problem.

I wonder if S&R planes are equipped with a device that can simulate a cell tower. If/when it detects the lost party's phone, it can provide a search radius and potential comms channel (depending on signal strength).

Basically a Stingray device for geolocation purposes instead of surveillance.

That requires an S&R plane to actually be in the air. That is usually not the case when somebody has a problem.

I have a GPS beacon that sends a distress signal to a satellite which then may a cause a plane to get in the air.

> I have a GPS beacon that sends a distress signal to a satellite which then may a cause a plane to get in the air.

I've been wondering, are there any such satellite-based distress-signaling tools that only charge you for the service if you actually use it? I imagine most people would gladly pay through the nose for actual emergency services, but would otherwise not desire to make a single cent in monthly payments for a service they don't use...

I wonder if the perverse incentive of "well, it's not serious to pay $10k for a rescue, I'll just struggle through" would lead to worse outcomes.

Any idea what the monthly costs are on those things? If it's like $20/month, and they have 100k subs, with maybe 50 annual rescues, you're looking at $40k / rescue? Numbers totally made up, was just looking for a feel on how they stack up.

You just made me find the answer to my question actually.

I had looked up the costs a few days ago and found something along $50-100/month for the subscription (Iridium).

But in the process of searching for that again, I learned that the term to search for is "personal locator beacon", and apparently those do operate exactly like I mentioned! https://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/personal-locator-bea...

Thanks for the nudge :)

>> Why can't they just put towers that allow emergency calls only?

Outside of cities, "first responder" is a more literal than official term. The off-duty nurse needs to be able to call her buddy with a truck who can get to the scene faster than the ambulance. The volunteer search party wants to coordinate their activities via their personal cellphones. The lost child wants to speed-dial 'mommy', not try to figure out whether or not to call 911. Emergency numbers only just isn't practical.

Also, cell coverage would probably reduce the number of "emergencies". Hikers who are two days late is an emergency, but not if they can phone someone to say they safe and waiting out the weather.

> Also, cell coverage would probably reduce the number of "emergencies". Hikers who are two days late is an emergency, but not if they can phone someone to say they safe and waiting out the weather.

This also holds without the quotes; people who have access to their phones can communicate amongst themselves in the early stage of a potential emergency and fix the issue themselves without having to wait until shit gets so bad that they can legitimately summon a full-blown SAR response.

The inverse is also true. You're responsible for your own safety while hiking etc. You should have no expectation that SAR will come out looking for you because you've done something stupid that requires someone to help you. [ADDED: And depending on electronics generally is pretty much a gamble.]

Allowing people to do stupid things is part of our culture. Without SAR things like skiing, climbing, sailing, surfing and even basic camping wouldnt exist. If a national park is setup, and people allowed in, we should expect some level of SAR coverage and notice of that coverage. Otherwise, non-pros attempt private rescues that often end badly.

>Without SAR things like skiing, climbing, sailing, surfing and even basic camping wouldnt exist.

Lots of people have done and continue to do those and other activities at times and places where there's no SAR. And, especially if you are in a remote area or bad weather, there is no guarantee that SAR is going to find/help you.

It may not have been your meaning, but it's a really bad idea to go into the wilderness with the mindset that someone will always come to your rescue if something goes wrong.

Or towers just for UHF/VHF radio repeaters? Doesn't require fiber backhaul and can be run on solar.

I noticed hiking yesterday a sign for UHF deep in the forest, presumably for emergency fire response at this time of year (summer). Ironically the mobile reception is sub-par in East Gippsland but I got a, relatively, strong 3G signal from the top of Genoa Peak, where the nearest phone tower is perhaps 10km away on the valley floor.

This already exists in many parks. Which is why it's slightly puzzling that first responders would be stumping for this.

My guess is that hikers don't carry a UHF/VHF radio, don't know how to use it, or don't know the right channel to call for help. Most people have a GSM/CDMA phone to call for help.

So, not so much help for the first responder's communication, but helping to alert the first responders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com