I'm no expert either, but I tend to agree. A voice call is MUCH more
bandwidth and resource intensive than a txt message. You probably use
more bandwidth in the first second of a voice call than when sending a
txt. With lots of towers down, the remaining towers were inundated with
voice calls and couldn't handle the load. It was a lot easier to sneak
through a low bandwidth txt message than setup and maintain a full-fledged
voice channel.
That is just pure conjecture on my part though. I could be totally wrong. :)
ray
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Petri Laihonen wrote:
I do not know the tower operations in detail, but my gut feeling says no.
It is more like voice and data channels. For instance you get certain amount of
64kb voice channels out of one T1 line. Those are
the ones getting congested. There could be similar amount of channels for data,
but data can be buffered/queued and normally
require less bandwidth, whereas voice can not (or very very little) and uses
relatively more bandwidth.
Again, I'm not an expert in GPRS or other wireless protocols in detail....� so
my gut feeling may be off a bit. Also, this
scenario keeps shifting towards heavier data usage and some day all voice
channels are just pure data. (I think they already are,
but will be a bit different format.....)
Petri
Karthik Poobal wrote:
Don't they use different frequencies for data and voice?
--
Karthik Poobalasubramanian
Louisiana Board of Regents
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
225-910-6126
On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Petri Laihonen wrote:
Cell towers crap out first with Voice, not with data.... I guess
data is easier to queue.... :-)
Text messaging worked a lot longer than Voice.... And that's when
majority learned that useful function in mobile world.
I remember the first Mardi Gras after the cell phone boom arrived to
US. I had no problems communicating at the same time people were
complainin that their calls can not go through...... (I also
expected that to happen......)
In most cases it is the incompetence of the people in the stores
provisioning the phones/plans rather than technology which fails. I
have been a victim of that about 80% of the time..... Latest case
being my iPhuck activation..... After they screwed up my wireless
account yet again, it took me 6 hours on the phone over 3 separate
days before it was activate. They could have done it the way I told
them to do it, but no.....
Petri
-ray wrote:
Several times this week, people have said "we should have some of
those cell cards for our laptops in case we lose internet!". I
reminded them that the cell towers were the first thing to crap out
during Katrina.
Hopefully AT&T learned some things, and the infrastructure is
better now than it was 3 years ago.
ray
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Petri Laihonen wrote:
Even via mobile if it comes down to that.....���� I have multiple
phones with multiple operators, so I'm not completely in the dark
with my iPhuck.....�� :-)
_______________________________________________
General mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
_______________________________________________
General mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
_______________________________________________
General mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ray DeJean http://www.r-a-y.org
Systems Engineer Southeastern Louisiana University
IBM Certified Specialist AIX Administration, AIX Support
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_______________________________________________
General mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
