I was curious why direct-to-cell hasn't been enabled everywhere, and it looks like it's because AT&T claims it would cause them an 18% decrease in network throughput/capacity. AT&T petitioned the FCC to block direct-to-cell rollout because of this.[1] SpaceX responded that AT&T's estimates of interference are incorrect, and that AT&T fails to account for many factors. Also, SpaceX argues that the public good of having cell phone access in remote areas outweighs the slight reduction of network capacity in areas with existing coverage.[2]<p>My guess is that the truth is somewhere in the middle. All else equal, adding more cell towers to an area will increase interference and decrease performance for existing networks, but I doubt it will be as bad as AT&T claims. Also T-Mobile made a deal with SpaceX to be the sole network with direct-to-cell for the first year after rollout. It seems more likely than not that AT&T is trying to hurt their competition using the FCC. If a different cell network had gotten an exclusive contract, I'm sure it would be T-Mobile petitioning the FCC to block direct-to-cell rollout.<p>No branch of the US government keeps statistics on how many people get lost in the wilderness and die each year, but it's definitely in the hundreds and possibly over 1,000.[3] Considering how often a working cell phone could save them, I think it's worth enabling direct-to-cell everywhere.<p>1. <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1081242986780/1" rel="nofollow">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1081242986780/1</a><p>2. <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1021391547062/1" rel="nofollow">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1021391547062/1</a><p>3. <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/07/04/why-hundreds-of-people-vanish-into-the-american-wilderness/" rel="nofollow">https://nypost.com/2020/07/04/why-hundreds-of-people-vanish-...</a>