On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:37:24 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <fpk2bn$q4q$2@aioe.org>:

>At 21 Feb 2008 12:00:36 +0000 John Navas wrote:

>> You obviously don't know the area. There are no "passing cruise ships"
>> with open microcells.
>
>No, I don't know the area. And IIRC, you didn't offer up the GPS
>coordinates when asked (but admittedly that thread was a long time ago-
>perhaps you did and I've forgotten.)

Actually I did.

>> Actually makes a good deal of sense. Offshore coverage by AT&T Wireless
>> along the California coast is quite good.
>
>But GSM can already cover up to 20 miles or so offshore without resorting
>to any capacity-reducing tricks, so why does it "make sense" to use ER-GSM?
> Are you suggesting that there's actually enough voice and data traffic in
>the strip of ocean between 20 and 40 miles from shore to justify cutting
>the capacity of all towers up and down the California coast in half, and
>locking out GPRS use on those towers?

That's not necessary. Only a small part of a tower need be configured
for Extended Range.

>> On a recent delivery to
>> Mexico I had coverage most of the way even when well offshore.
>
>More than 20 miles?

I'm pretty sure I was, although I wasn't keeping accurate records so
can't say for sure. (I was doing client work. A different crew member
was doing the navigation.)

>> You obviously don't know the card either.
>
>What's to know? It's a GSM/GPRS/EDGE data-card. What's the big secret?

No big secret. You're just making assumptions, and trying to challenge
me with those assumptions. Instead, learn what the card can do. Learn
about Extended Range GSM. Maybe even check the GSM signal in those same
areas.

As I've already said, I'm not going to waste much more time on this, in
part because it's all been thoroughly hashed out before, in part because
nothing is going to change any minds, making the exercise pointless.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>