Is it worth finding out where your local cell phone towers are, with the idea of moving around if the nearest ones are knocked out? Is it worth having two or more phones with subscriptions to different networks - preferable ones that don't share the same local towers? You may find that one operator gets back on line quicker than another.

It might, particularly in sparsely covered areas. In a more densely covered region, there would be so many towers to make note of, it might be easier to just walk around a bit in search of a signal. If you live in a densely covered area, that also means that it's a densely populated area, and the cell towers will likely be overloaded with callers during some crisis situation anyway, so it might not help too much in the end to know where towers are located. So many people will be wandering around looking for a signal that all the nearby operational towers will likely be overwhelmed anyway.

An alternative might be to think of tall buildings or hilltops that you might use to try and hit more distant cell towers in case the ones in your vicinity are inoperable. You may be able to reach a more distant tower without actually having to move very far from your location, if you can just get up higher.

Having two phones using two networks would provide you some redundancy, although at added expense. You often hear comments from people after disasters, like major hurricanes, that carrier X was totally down while carrier Y was always on, so the idea has merit. In Europe, I guess you could accomplish the same thing by simply swapping the SIM cards between carriers. I hear a lot of people who travel between countries there routinely pop in different SIM cards depending on where they are, to get the lowest rates, so it's not a new idea for them, and you wouldn't have to worry about keeping two separte phones charged up all the time, in preparation of some disaster.

This is a great thread.

Our (my wife and I) have a plan that comprises a few different levels using text messaging/email if the phones are out, CB and ham radio, and GMRS radios. We have several places to meet within 30 miles of home...state parks to our south, east, and west. Lake Erie is just north. Does anyone else think that a state park may be a good place to meet? Anyone think it's a bad idea?

We also have friends' houses in other states we'd meet at if the situation warranted, and those friends are also our out-of-state contacts.

Funny you should mention a state park as a meeting point. I've always thought that a state/national park would make a great retreat. Depending on location of course, you could have plenty of water from multiple sources (rivers, lakes, wells), plenty of wood to cook/boil water with, and i doubt that would be many people's choice of refuge should a major disruption occur.

As a meeting place, maybe access could be a problem. Depending on the kind of situations you're thinking of, things like flooding might be more likely on the way to a wildnerness area than around town, perhaps making it harder to meet up safely or in a timely manner.

Oh, the residents that live around the park may be very friendly and helpful, but then again, they may be very suspicious or even hostile to "outsiders". Even the authorities may be this way. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who read news stories of some people fleeing the flooding in New Orleans, only to be turned back by police roadblocks at the border of neighboring parishes. It's possible that roads to state parks will be blocked off by the park rangers to prevent people from escaping there. If I were in charge of a state park, I guess I would be nervous of having all these people "running loose" in the park after some disaster, not knowing how long the situation will last.

As a place to stay put rather than just meet, it may not be the best place for people/families who are not equipped or experienced to live outdoors. Or maybe you're fine, but other people are dumb about using fire and start a wildfire or don't think of sanitation and end up excessively polluting the water for everyone else. And if you get in trouble, like get caught in rain and someone is going into hypothermia, then you're just that much farther from any sort of help than if you were closer to civillization.

Once the authorities are able to get things semi-organized, like send out water tankers and relief supplies, set up aid stations, send police/National Guard troops, etc., state parks probably are not on their list of locations to support unless there are a lot of people there with you.

Another totally random thought that just came to mind--marijuana plots and meth labs. A rare but pervasive problem in some parks. If people start pushing into deeper areas to get away from crowds, then there's the chance of stumbling onto one of these encampments. Even if the occupants aren't around and armed, there could still be booby traps and dangerous chemical contamination.

Anyway, some random thoughts.

Towers are all shared, usually they are not owned by the cell phone company rather they are owned by someone else who leases the space to them so typically the different carriers are all one the same tower.
Also not all carriers use use SIM cards, Verizon for example doesn't

The larger state and national parks have their own security people, they could be closed in the event of something major. I'm not sure what would be a good meeting place though. Any kind of shopping center/grocery store is going to be crowded as people rush to it to buy beer, yes, I went to the store once before a big "disaster" was to hit and 95% of the people had carts with nothing but beer.

Yes; and you can get Pay As You Go SIMs which don't have running costs if you don't use them. (You need to use them once every six months or else risk losing the number.)

Having a spare phone is relative easy now - a matter of keeping the old phone when you upgrade. Lithium Ion batteries should keep their charge will enough that a check every 6-12 months should do.