Hell this guy did it with a handheld

So to summarize, HAM radio operators provide essential and effective communications infrastructure at their own cost, this actually is more accessible because a HAM radio costs a fraction of a cell phone and has no monthly fee attached

There's a video of someone talking from Texas to Florida with a handheld, so the range without a repeater is no issue at all?

Repeaters are necessary for rough terrain

> HAM radio costs a fraction of a cell phone and has no monthly fee attached
A cheap cellphone, one you can pick up for a couple dollars?

During an emergency you don't pay for fees..

To call 9/11

Which may or may not work

It has a habbit of not working during emergencies

There's an automated text messaging system

Which sends out information automatically

Then you have to communicate with parents, spouses, kids etc

Which this system also provides..

No it doesnt

Do you send your kid to school with a portable HAM radio?

I dont live in the mount Shasta area, my childs school is two minutes from my house

And they have a phone don't they?

So you would call them

And if I didnt pay for cell service i wouldnt be able to call them

Which, the cellular network provides

The school has a radio

True, but they would be getting information regardless

Every teacher in the school has a phone

They do

In the city

And that's going to receive the message

Not out in the boonies

Cant get them automated texts if there is no cell service <:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>

They would still have a phone out in the boonies, but they wouldn't expect much coverage. But, replacing the current system with the cellular system I mentioned would change that

Pay no attention to the Weez behind the destroyer...

It would also mean, people passing through the area would get alerted as well

So right there, you have more people being alerted through the cellular system..

For example, a family driving through for whatever reason

The likelyhood of them having a cellphone is increadibly high

Your entire argument is that we should tear down an existing, effective and low cost form of communication and replace it with lower range, more expensive system and tack on a monthly cost

I didnt know you could be a socialist and a corporate shill at the same time

I thought that was just a meme

The cost to effected users would be low, since there would be more people being impacted by the system. The range can be covered through increasing the power and removing for example the 3G capabilities and the monthly fee isn't an issue since people will be given critical information automatically for free AND you can implement a system to cover any fees during that time of 'emergency' like with the 9/11 system. ALSO, it will be more useful overall outside the scope of emergencies, since people can use it to say, make phone calls whereas now they cannot.

They make local calls via landlines or long range calls via satellite wifi

Making your cell towers redundant

Almost all cell phones provide wifi calling