Rogers dead zone on whitemud

[blake]

Not sure where the best place to post this is.. Any others Rogers wireless customers experience low signal strength or dropped calls when driving on the Whitemud, in the area immediately south of the Quesnell bridge? I experience dropped calls nearly 80% of the time I pass this area. I have an iPhone 4.

Called Rogers and got nowhere with this..

[Replacement]

Is this a ***** thread?

If anything I wish they would adopt "dead zones" on every freeway in town. Would greatly reduce the number of distracted drivers talking on the phone instead of paying attention to the road.

[Alex.L]

Let's just assume that user blake was operating his phone legally through a handsfree system, and not steer this thread off course.

[lobbdogg]

While I cannot comment on the Whitemud area you are referring to, I know there are a few places at the UofA that have terrible signal strength from Rogers, yet Telus phones have almost full strength in the same areas.

I'm sure it works both ways between carriers, but this is just what I've noticed.

[JJMorrocco]

We drove this on Sunday night and my wife was on the phone and she did experience the phone cutting out but it didn't drop.

[Arsoys]

This is not a ***** thread, actually. (Boy, you guys like tossing the ***** word around. What are you so scared of?)

I live in Brookside, have a Rogers cell phone, and the reception at home is terrible. Good thing I don't need the cell phone while I'm at home.

[DTrobotnik]

Originally Posted by Replacement

Is this a ***** thread?

If anything I wish they would adopt "dead zones" on every freeway in town. Would greatly reduce the number of distracted drivers talking on the phone instead of paying attention to the road.

you would alter your opinion if you or someone you knew were in an accident and needed to contact emergency services

[Medwards]

What is the poster was a passenger?

[sundance]

The problem is this area is mostly residential how many people would complain about another cell phone tower being put up? You MIGHT get the Latter Day Saints to add something in their temple, I'm guessing it wouldn't be cheap though.

[Arsoys]

Originally Posted by sundance

The problem is this area is mostly residential how many people would complain about another cell phone tower being put up? You MIGHT get the Latter Day Saints to add something in their temple, I'm guessing it wouldn't be cheap though.

On the north side of 53 Avenue either side of Whitemud are large school fields and community-league installations like tennis courts and hockey rinks. Somewhere in there should be space for a cell tower.

[Medwards]

^ there's already a few in this neighbourhood. One could easily pig back on another tower (common practice in Canada)

http://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/cancellsites.html

[jbubble]

Originally Posted by Arsoys

This is not a ***** thread, actually. (Boy, you guys like tossing the ***** word around. What are you so scared of?)

I live in Brookside, have a Rogers cell phone, and the reception at home is terrible. Good thing I don't need the cell phone while I'm at home.

People on C2E seem to be affraid of anyone with a different view.

Telus calls also drop in this area sometimes too.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Ander

Let's just assume that user blake was operating his phone legally through a handsfree system, and not steer this thread off course.

A distinction in legality only. A handsfree system is just another way to essentially do the same. What a great misnomer: "handsfree" device. Who dials the numbers?

I'm no more confident in fellow drivers ability to pay attention to the road using a "handsfree" device then with a regular cell phone.

Any number of things during a cell phone call can be a significant distraction to a driver. Handsfree devices just greatly increase the likelihood that a driver will be on the phone at any given time while driving . In other words they actually INCREASE the distraction related time. Basically since the advent you see some people driving around like the car is their own mobile office or dispatch station on wheels.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by DTrobotnik

you would alter your opinion if you or someone you knew were in an accident and needed to contact emergency services

Half the probability that I'd ever be in an accident is some dickwad distracted driver smashing into me. When it isn't drunk drivers reaping the carnage.

A cell phone shouldn't EVER be operational in a vehicle when the motor is running.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Medwards

What is the poster was a passenger?

The OP actually stated "when driving". So it wasn't necessary for me to conclude he was the passenger..

Additionally when the OP is mentioning the % of times he gets dropped calls while traversing an often icy, and busy stretch of road I also conclude he's making a habit of distracted driving at the most inopportune times.

[lobbdogg]

There are other threads to debate if cell phones should be used while driving, or weather hands free is ok or not. If anything, you're the one trolling.

[Alex.L]

OR

Originally Posted by Ander

Let's just assume that user blake was operating his phone legally through a handsfree system, and not steer this thread off course.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by lobbdogg

There are other threads to debate if cell phones should be used while driving, or weather hands free is ok or not. If anything, you're the one trolling.

Arguably you can consider it that. I certainly have my reasons for responding as I have.

I find the question very offensive and the action of driving while speaking on the phone extremely irresponsible. Even dangerous.

People getting killed for this reason all the time and in every jurisdiction. With no substantive evidence that "handsfree' operation is making the phone operation any safer. Like I indicated earlier it arguably exacerbates the problem and the irresponsible habit.

Messageboards have a socializing function. Obviously the OP felt its socially acceptable to be asking this question on a high user volume messageboard. I'd imagine the friends and family of loved ones killed by drivers who were on their cell phone at the time of respective vehicular manslaughters might feel very differently about this topic.

Its amazing even that people are not acknowledging this as a potentially contentious topic.

[Alex.L]

It's amazing that you find every topic to be contentious. I bet you're just a pleasure to be around.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Ander

It's amazing that you find every topic to be contentious. I bet you're just a pleasure to be around.

Ad hominem attack. Also a generalization.

Question: Do you know anybody thats been killed by a driver that was using a cell phone at the time of the vehicular manslaughter?

[lobbdogg]

I think most people on here would agree that texting/talking while driving is dangerous.

However, this thread is not about that. Discuss it in one of the other threads, and quit derailing this one.

[Alex.L]

Originally Posted by Replacement

Ad hominem attack. Also a generalization.

Question: Do you know anybody thats been killed by a driver that was using a cell phone at the time of the vehicular manslaughter?

Do you understand the point of topics on message boards?

If you want to discuss the potential dangers of talking on a cell phone while driving (legally or non-legally), then please start a topic specifically about that.

If you want to participate in this thread, start discussing this particular dead zone. This discussion has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not driving while talking on the phone is dangerous, just as it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I know someone who has been killed by a driver using a cell phone.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Ander

Do you understand the point of topics on message boards?

If you want to discuss the potential dangers of talking on a cell phone while driving (legally or non-legally), then please start a topic specifically about that.

If you want to participate in this thread, start discussing this particular dead zone. This discussion has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not driving while talking on the phone is dangerous, just as it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I know someone who has been killed by a driver using a cell phone.

Obviously I disagree.

The OP again made specific mention of driving while using a cell phone, and doing so immediately south of Quesnell(a dangerous and often icy area) on a freeway and points out the % of times he's getting dropped calls in that area. Because evidently he's on the phone regularly through that area.

It wasn't the question he asked but the way he asked it and the content that he included. The OP for some reason specifically included content in his OP that left his actions open to criticism.

If he indicated he had a dropped call once on the Whitemud I wouldn't have responded the way I have. I wouldn't have responded at all.

[Arsoys]

Some people just can't Replace their frustration, can they. Back to the point...

MEdwards shows a map of towers, color-coder by carrier. It's interesting that the model of shared infrastructure with separate billing that has become standard for most other utilities does NOT seem to extend to mobile telephony.

[Medwards]

^ point: Although they share the pole of the tower, each company has their own radios on each tower... It's only the pole they share, a very small fraction of the cost of a cell site. The biggest part of the cost? The stuff that gets put on the pole, something that is not shared, as their is different technology.

Bell/Telus share same technology
Rogers doesn't share, except with fido

[Kitlope]

You know Replacement, you trolled my bush party thread too. Now you are completely trying to steer this one off course. I can only imagine how many other threads you have done this to.

Would you quit being a douchebag?

[azzey]

^ That's uncalled for.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Kitlope

You know Replacement, you trolled my bush party thread too. Now you are completely trying to steer this one off course. I can only imagine how many other threads you have done this to.

Would you quit being a douchebag?

Its odd that in that thread you admitted to being chased by police across peoples yards, referring to that as some of the best moments of your life and you're calling me a douchebag?


The OP hasn't responded once in this thread. Looks a little like it was a drive by *****.

To wit the same poster started this thread advocating the right to speed on all highways and freeways and a speed limit of 145km/hr. Or no speed limit at all.

http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=18456


Yeah I wonder if my detection was off at all. Real problem driver. Spotted that a mile away. He didn't respond in that thread he started either.

[Kitlope]

Perhaps you would have preferred me breaking into your car instead as many in my age group did?

Get off your high horse dude. I'm sure you were perfect too growing up :rollseyes:

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Kitlope

Perhaps you would have preferred me breaking into your car instead as many in my age group did?

Get off your high horse dude. I'm sure you were perfect too growing up :rollseyes:

I'm sure I don't call specific people douchebags on the internet. Not that I'm inferring anything about you for doing that. Just a wish that you, or others wouldn't resort to name calling.

Look, I like a lot of your posts and I wish that this would come to some sort of reason or resolution. I hadn't thought you carried over any grudge from the other thread. I thought that was done. I'm perfectly open to people dropping me a PM if they find my take or posts unreasonable.

But my "high horse" is just evoking some community standards in todays new version of coffee houses. These are essentially the townhall meetings of the new millenium. I kind of see messageboards that way. Its socialization just like anything else. For most of us.

Can It be annoying seeing differing opinions. Absolutely. But I'm not calling people names or directing insults. I'm giving some specific feedback or opposing views in some threads. Not saying its any "truth" either, just feedback and anybody can consider, or dismiss out of hand, or not read it at all.

My signature should even give a hint at some humility.

cheers

[blake]

Wow I didnt think a question about Rogers service would generate such inflamed comments.

I use hands free in my car with voice control, which is perfectly legal. It is similar to talking to a passenger. Show me one study that shows this poses a driving risk.

Anyways, my intent was not to open up a debate. Anyone know the best way / department to contact Rogers about this service issue ?

[MJ]

Originally Posted by blake

I use hands free in my car with voice control, which is perfectly legal. It is similar to talking to a passenger. Show me one study that shows this poses a driving risk.

Perfectly legal and equally as dangerous. Just a quick google search found a couple articles supporting this:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/1...vs-passengers/
All of the cell phone drivers were using hands-free headsets, debunking the idea that it’s safer to talk on the phone while driving if you’re not holding a handset, Dr. Strayer noted.

http://www.myoptumhealth.com/portal/...e&clicked=true
The fact is that studies comparing handheld to hands-free phone use while driving found no difference in risks. People using any type of cell phone are subject to "inattention blindness." This means that you can look at objects, but not really see them. Plus, researchers tracking eye movements of people using hands-free phones found that they made fewer glances at traffic lights and rearview mirrors than those not using a phone.

[Replacement]

Thanks MJ. I'd already alluded to this earlier. That theres no difference in saftety whether one uses "handsfree" operation or not. I've gone as far as to say that its worse having a handsfree device because it likely increases the time spent talking on the phone, and being distracted. Additionally nearly every study has commented specifically that Govt's that sanction the use of handsfree devices as an alternative are creating the harmful illusion that such devices are safe to use. For instance studies have shown that while drivers using a cell phone while talking will slow down the users of handsfree phones do not slow down and are under the false impression that the activity is safe. That handsfree operation of cellphones is also dangerous has been well reported in studies well before legislation changes specifically cited them as still "legal".

Fact is I actually knew about the research and reports before responding in the thread. I also knew the OP had an earlier thread about 145km/hr speed limits that he thought was a good idea.

Anyway heres some more information for respondents that want to make the arbitrary legal distinction instead of arguing and supporting the most safe driving practice. So I hope people read up and become more informed on the issues. This is well known and reported in nearly every jurisdiction around the world.

http://www.newser.com/story/31346/ha...-overload.html

http://www.missouriaccidentlawyerblo...ill_a_dan.html

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...handsfree.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...k-driving.html

http://www.saferoads.org/hands-free-...es-still-risky

[Arsoys]

Nice to know C2E is still full of self-important types who get their kicks derailing useful questions and hectoring people about what they may have to do. Do you not realize that not only is a handsfree the LEGAL way to talk while driving, but that entire trades need two-way communication while driving? And they do a hell of a lot more useful stuff delivering things back and forth than anything you do all day.

As for the topic.

Rogers reception is a LOT better west of Whitemud in Brander Gardens than east of it in Brookside. I have no idea whether the fairly deep cut of the freeway and the recently put-up noise fences make reception from the road worse.

There are all the usual ways to contact Rogers, of course, but I'm really noit sure how much of an effect a single complaint about poor service in a given location would have, even if accompanied by an immediate cancellation of subscription.

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by Arsoys

Nice to know C2E is still full of self-important types who get their kicks derailing useful questions and hectoring people about what they may have to do. Do you not realize that not only is a handsfree the LEGAL way to talk while driving, but that entire trades need two-way communication while driving? And they do a hell of a lot more useful stuff delivering things back and forth than anything you do all day.

Abaka? Is that you?

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Arsoys

Nice to know C2E is still full of self-important types who get their kicks derailing useful questions and hectoring people about what they may have to do. Do you not realize that not only is a handsfree the LEGAL way to talk while driving, but that entire trades need two-way communication while driving? And they do a hell of a lot more useful stuff delivering things back and forth than anything you do all day.

.

I've stated why I posted as I have in this thread and used this thread to foster increased understanding and consideration of the issue at hand. Would it be better and more responsive of me to instead foster continued bad driving practice by providing quick remedial information?

Or is it acceptable that some more information occur around the more general issue?

I'll give you an analogy. If a person asked how they could take the safeguard off a chainsaw to make it "easier to use" in tight quarters or find a way to use a chainsaw in situations where it wasn't advised would people respond in rote task with specific answers to that enquiry or would they respond with concern to the danger apparent in the specific enquiry and invoke some public education. Imperfect example I realize but should suffice to explain again, my responses in this thread.

Finally, is it more important that I defer to some notion about what constitutes derail in some peoples minds vs a notion of furthering of more useful and prudent information in the name of public safety?

[MJ]

Originally Posted by Arsoys

Nice to know C2E is still full of self-important types who get their kicks derailing useful questions and hectoring people about what they may have to do. Do you not realize that not only is a handsfree the LEGAL way to talk while driving, but that entire trades need two-way communication while driving? And they do a hell of a lot more useful stuff delivering things back and forth than anything you do all day.

I know, how dare I answer to blake's question that I quoted. Someone wanted further information, the community should have ignored his request? As a member of this community, it is fully in my rights to supply the further information blake requested. I'm sorry you do not feel the same. I fail to see how I derailed his useful question by giving him the answer to the same useful question.

Where did I specify what I do all day and how did you nominate yourself to judge its relative importance?

[richardW]

i don't quite understand what is going on in this thread, initial poster asked a legitimate question about something that is perfectly legal and the thread gets derailed by a few posters self righteous attitudes.

the topic isn't whether hands free driving is safe. start another thread for that . Moderators need to stop allowing this garbage as it makes the whole site look bad for newcomers.

[MJ]

Originally Posted by richardW

and the thread gets derailed by a few posters self righteous attitudes.

Yes, I was a complete *** for answering a question posed in this thread. This is not a forum for sharing information. If you have information to contribute, please keep it to yourself. Lesson learned.

Originally Posted by richardW

Moderators need to stop allowing this garbage as it makes the whole site look bad for newcomers.

Yes, and you calling legitimate answers to questions posed in this thread self-righteous is the ideal setting for newcomers. Thanks for setting the record straight!

[Alex.L]

Originally Posted by MJ

Yes, I was a complete *** for answering a question posed in this thread. This is not a forum for sharing information. If you have information to contribute, please keep it to yourself. Lesson learned.

Yes, and you calling legitimate answers to questions posed in this thread self-righteous is the ideal setting for newcomers. Thanks for setting the record straight!

I don't think anybody was accusing you of anything, MJ.

[Medwards]

Internets is fun

[richardW]

MJ i think you may be confused