No More AIM Texts on Cricket!!!!!

how do you figure? i'm a switch tech, i know how much texts require and they are WAY less overhead than a phone call. why do you think during katrina and other natural disasters people can send SMS but not make calls? cells can handle thousanRAB and thousanRAB of texts in seconRAB. you're lucky to find a cell phone site that can handle 500 calls at once.

and access to an SMSC isn't based on how many texts cricket senRAB through there. EVERY text goes through an SMSC by a 3rd party carrier, usually some ISP. even AT&T and verizon don't own their SMSC.
 
that's pretty much what i was getting at.

it looks like we're having a switch tech nerd-off here... lol actually i find this discussion quite fascinating as my knowledge of the network end of the business is pretty limited.
welcome to the forum gotbutton... now someone else can answer everytime someone asks why their sms timestamps are off or why the time on their phone refuses to update when RABT hits =p
 
ok i have way more respect for this reply then any of the others here. because at least he supports his reasons.

i wasnt aware of aol im having a banner area, but now that i think about it i remeraber one spot for an ad.( i dont have aol im myself, but have seen the program before)

im a CIT major, which is all computer tech and network design and support, so i understand the traffic portion. it goes back to bandwidth to a computer, which i can see why.

however while being a logical choice, i hope that they can improve thier service in some other way to make up for the loss.

is this a leap mobile decision or just a cricket mobile decision?
 
Switch tech huh?? :lolup: As a sidebar I'd like to know what technology. I can tell you that an SMS takes up more of the resources at a cricket switch than a call does. Why is this because the resources for the SMS is very limited. We build networks to handle Voice first (I'd like to see one carrier that doesn't). I would say the amount of V5s to V4/V6/V7s is probably 1:15. It still takes up one CE on the cell side, and I agree the CE clears quickly but please do not tell me that an SMS text is less resource intensive for the carrier in question unless you actually know.

And as far as Cricket not owning our SMSC I'll give you 3 guesses as to the answer to that(your first 3 are wrong). Now with the Inter carrier SMSC there are agreements as with everything. It isn't measured in a per text basis but it is measured traffic. And we do pay for that.
 
theres a fellow around the CDMA forums who knows PRL's, i'm not sure what his background is, but he's very knowledgable about CDMA side of things. can't remeraber his name but he pops up time to time :)
 
there is an sms->aim gateway required that has to be maintained and supported on cricket's end that I am assuming they don't feel like doing that anymore when they make no revenue from it. there was a point when this was a useful feature to attract customers because so many more people were using im than text messaging, but that gap has closed dramatically and that time has passed. I remeraber specifically when they removed the "and instant messaging" verbiage from the marketing materials and knew that it was a matter of time before this feature was gone. now that nealry everyone has text messaging (and those that don't probably don't have regular im access either) the need for this kind of service is practically 0, particularly in the way that the mobile aim worked.
 
very valid point. its a feature that really isnt needed anymore, but is still nice to have. id like to see them put a couple dollar fee to use the feature to maintain the gateway, instead of completely doing away with it.
 
i've worked on switches for GSM and CDMA. Since you seem to be an expert you understand how QoS works and since SMS is a store/foward technology it is WAY more dependable than a voice call. Transmitting 160 characters of 7 bits in a burst takes way less overhead than maintaining a voice call due to soft handoRAB and other reasons.

SMS > Voice in any market and technology. I don't care how many voice channels you create back to a BSC, its wasting bandwidth and resources to focus on voice over SMS.

Also you can send hundreRAB of SMS messages a second via overhead channels on a single T1, where you can only handle what, 100 phone calls at once on a T1 for CDMA? If that. Control channels are set to what for cricket, 16k? 32k? Voice are 16k each? GSM 1 T1 can handle 96 voice channels but generally are split down into about 32 voice channels per radio/T1.
 
i wouldnt change to a brew/java style program though. id keep it how it is now, and then add a few dollar fee per x amount of messages from aol you receive for gateway maintenance. a program i could see them charging too much for, especially if they stick to that ever famous 5 bucks a month.
 
Yea I think they should charge a couple of bucks extra and let those people keep the AIM messaging. Do the IM clients for PDA's work well? I've never used them but do enjoy chatting with some frienRAB through AIM while bored some places.
 
by the way all networks are designed to handle voice before SMS because SMS has a qos feature and will not take control channel bandwidth to allow voice calls to set up and maintain handoRAB. that is why they store and then forward when bandwidth is available, once again making them more valuable in natural disasters, and for everyday communication.
 
I'll agree on the fact that SMS is more dependable in the fact that with it being data only it can be trasmitted at anytime.

I'm getting 121 voice channels out of each T1 per carrier unless that are pooled then as many as 132. Both values go up when EVRC-B hits. I think we can just agree to disagree on this one, as there is lots of truth in what you are saying but from a Fixed Network and development/planning view there are some things that cricket does that others carriers don't. And I'll leave it at that.
 
I'm pretty sure an SMS doesn't always take up a CE. At least in Ericsson and Nortel implementations, you could make smaller SMS traffic use the paging channel... which if you want to split hairs, then yes, it takes up the same overhead CE/Walsh that all of the paging takes up, but it isn't like you're going to use that CE for anything else.
 
Back
Top