🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <vEkNn.21260$7d5.9890@newsfe17.iad> Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> was claimed to have wrote:

>At 01 Jun 2010 13:27:22 -0700 DevilsPGD wrote:
>> In message <BJCdnXgH7Ymx_mHWnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@posted.southvalleyinternet>
>> Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> was claimed to have wrote:
>> 
>> >Your understanding is wrong.  As part od the setup you set to allow
>only 
>> >certain wireless numbers to use the cell.
>> 
>> This is actually one of my biggest complaints about the whole thing.  I
>> don't want to limit it to me, I want my visitors to have decent cell
>> service too.
>
>
>I think that's probably just AT&T's way of "protecting" the owner- IIRC,
>the Microcell can only handle a few (five?) simultaneous connections, so
>a "whitelist" is an easy way to guarantee it's always available to your
>phone(s).  

Making it a "Allow all phones" option would be sufficient in my books.

>Perhaps they're picturing a Microcell owner using it in an apartment
>building where a dozen AT&T phones might be in range at all times, and
>the owner might have a hard time getting a channel on his own cell!  ;)

Yeah, it's a risk.  However, for the farm-out-in-the-boonies, it would
be a godsend.

>Having said that, there are certainly other, and perhaps better, ways to
>deal with it- e.g. an "open" Microcell with a "priority" whitelist that
>can bump other users, or dedicated channels for your phone(s), and first
>come-first served for the remainder.

All of those would be nice options.