T-Mobile cellular service - FAQ: Why is my GPRS, EDGE, or UMTS so slow?

Author

FAQ: Why is my GPRS, EDGE, or UMTS so slow?

John Navas

2005-08-10, 2:48 am

Q: Why is my GPRS, EDGE, or UMTS so slow?

A1: SERIAL PORT BOTTLENECK: Connections between handsets and "tethered"
devices (e.g., notebook computer, PDA) are typically implemented as a serial
port, either real or virtual, and port speed usually defaults to 115 Kbps. (My
own Bluetooth stack is implemented as a virtual serial port that will go as
fast as 921.6 Kbps, but which runs at only 115.2 Kbps by default.) While 115
Kbps is generally fast enough for GPRS and CDMA 1X, it can be a bottleneck for
EDGE, UMTS, and CDMA EV-DO. In general, I recommend port speed* of 230 Kbps
for GPRS and CDMA 1X, 460 Kbps for EDGE, and 920 Kbps for UMTS and CMDA EV-DO.

A2: HANDSET CAPABILITIES: Handsets (and PC Cards) do not all have the same
data performance. In general, all reasonably recent GPRS/EDGE-capable devices
from Ericsson and Sony Ericsson support Class 8 (4+1) and Class 10 (4+2, max
of 5), whereas most Nokia devices are limited to slower Class 2 (2+1), Class 4
(3+1), and Class 6 (3+2, max 4). Motorola has both Class 4 and Class 8
devices. (The first number is the max downlink slots, and the number after the
"+" is the max uplink slots.) This can translate into a substantial difference
in throughput -- if supported by the carrier:
- Class 4 or Class 6 is 50% faster on downlink than Class 2
- Class 8 or Class 10 is 100% faster on downlink than Class 2,
33% faster on downlink than Class 4 or Class 6.
- Class 10 can be 100% faster on uplink than Class 2, Class 4, or Class 8.

* To set cellular serial port speed in Windows XP:
- Open Network Connections
- Right-click on cellular connection, and choose Properties
- In Properties-General, select checked cellular modem, and click Configure
- In Modem Configuration, select desired Maximum Speed.
- Click OK to close all windows.

Steve Sobol

2005-08-10, 2:48 am

John Navas wrote:
> Q: Why is my GPRS, EDGE, or UMTS so slow?
>
> A1: SERIAL PORT BOTTLENECK

This wouldn't apply to GPRS, would it? How fast is a typical GPRS connection?

(Once again, please excuse this ex-CDMA user's non-grasp on GSM data specs.)

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

John Navas

2005-08-10, 5:48 am

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < ddc0a0$6ud$1@ratbert
.glorb.com> on Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:49:59 -0700, Steve
Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>This wouldn't apply to GPRS, would it? How fast is a typical GPRS connection?
>
>(Once again, please excuse this ex-CDMA user's non-grasp on GSM data specs.)

GPRS can be as fast as the best 56K analog dialup modems in terms of bit rate.
While that's less than 115K port speed, higher port speeds decrease latency
and thus improve performance. This is because packet data is transferred to
the host *after* receipt of the entire packet by the mobile device. The
difference isn't large, but it can be significant.

EGPRS(EDGE) is of course a much bigger issue.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Steve Sobol

2005-08-10, 5:48 am

John Navas wrote:

> GPRS can be as fast as the best 56K analog dialup modems in terms of bit rate.

How fast is EDGE then? I was under the impression that it was around the
same speed as ISDN at the top-end.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

John Navas

2005-08-10, 5:48 am

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < ddc6i0$7hq$2@ratbert
.glorb.com> on Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:36:37 -0700, Steve
Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>How fast is EDGE then? I was under the impression that it was around the
>same speed as ISDN at the top-end.

I routinely get 150 Kbps on EGPRS(EDGE), significantly faster throughput than
ISDN.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Isaiah Beard

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

John Navas wrote:

>
>
> I routinely get 150 Kbps on EGPRS(EDGE), significantly faster throughput than
> ISDN.

Depends onw aht you're referring to when you say "ISDN."

If you mean ISDN BRI (Basic Rate Interface), then the speed is 64kbps.

If you mean ISDN PRI (Primary Rate Interface), then the speed is 128kbps.

And if you're talking about 3-PRI bonded ISDN (the stuff used for
H.320/H.323 videonconference and for broadcast quality video and audio),
then the data rate is 384kbps.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Steve Sobol

2005-08-11, 2:48 am

Isaiah Beard wrote:

> Depends onw aht you're referring to when you say "ISDN."
>
> If you mean ISDN BRI (Basic Rate Interface), then the speed is 64kbps.
>
> If you mean ISDN PRI (Primary Rate Interface), then the speed is 128kbps.

> And if you're talking about 3-PRI bonded ISDN (the stuff used for
> H.320/H.323 videonconference and for broadcast quality video and audio),
> then the data rate is 384kbps.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

ISDN BRI is 2 "B" channels + a data channel. Each B channel can carry one
voice conversation or 64K of data. You can purchase single-channel ISDN
connections from an ISP (like the one I used to work for), but the telco
gives you 2B+D.

ISDN PRI is 23B+D. The total bandwidth, if you choose to use all of the B
channels for data, is 1472Kbps, just one channel short of a full T-1 worth
of bandwidth (T-1 is 1536Kbps of data, or 24 voice channels or some
combination thereof depending how you split it).

FYI.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

Miguel Cruz

2005-08-13, 5:48 pm

Isaiah Beard < sacredpoet@sacredpoe
t.com> wrote:
> Depends onw aht you're referring to when you say "ISDN."
>
> If you mean ISDN BRI (Basic Rate Interface), then the speed is 64kbps.

Huh?

> If you mean ISDN PRI (Primary Rate Interface), then the speed is 128kbps.

Huh?

> And if you're talking about 3-PRI bonded ISDN (the stuff used for
> H.320/H.323 videonconference and for broadcast quality video and audio),
> then the data rate is 384kbps.

Huh? 3-PRI bonded ISDN?

The numbers for PRI vary by where in the world you are, but BRI is 2 64K and
one 16K channel, and PRI in the US is about 10 times that capacity.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan

Ridolph

2005-08-24, 11:48 pm

Is there an accelerated proxy server available (even by subscription,
or software that I could put on my own server) for TMO which would
increase the speed? Like Venturi on Verizon?

On 2005-08-10 02:23:39 -0400, John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> said:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In < ddc0a0$6ud$1@ratbert
.glorb.com> on Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:49:59 -0700, Steve
> Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>
> GPRS can be as fast as the best 56K analog dialup modems in terms of bit rate.
> While that's less than 115K port speed, higher port speeds decrease latency
> and thus improve performance. This is because packet data is transferred to
> the host *after* receipt of the entire packet by the mobile device. The
> difference isn't large, but it can be significant.
>
> EGPRS(EDGE) is of course a much bigger issue.

J Robertson

2005-08-26, 5:48 pm

Ridolph wrote:
> Is there an accelerated proxy server available (even by subscription, or
> software that I could put on my own server) for TMO which would increase
> the speed? Like Venturi on Verizon?
>
> On 2005-08-10 02:23:39 -0400, John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> said:
>
>
>
>
My experience is that the data transfer on the EDGE PC card (Sony
Ericsson) is now less that it was. Before on a good day I could get
80kbits/sec download rate but now often only 5 to 10. Also it downloads
some then just stops. Sort of like they have a limit on the number of
bytes you can download in one session. I have not been able to get an
answer from Cingular about this.

Thurman

2005-08-28, 5:48 pm

"J Robertson" <jrnews1@att.biz> wrote in message
news:MTGPe.1882$Bc2.1582@trnddc06...
> My experience is that the data transfer on the EDGE PC card (Sony
> Ericsson) is now less that it was. Before on a good day I could get
> 80kbits/sec download rate but now often only 5 to 10. Also it downloads
> some then just stops. Sort of like they have a limit on the number of
> bytes you can download in one session. I have not been able to get an
> answer from Cingular about this.

My old CDMA card on Sprint runs at a hardware 144Kbs but because of
compression the sustained rate while not moving is usually between 300 and
408Kbs. At 80mph, transfer rates drop to a little over 200Kbs.

I tested the new Verizon cards in a notebook and non-moving. They get burst
rates up to 4Mbs but their data coverage is only slightly better than a
barbed wire fence.

Is your 5 to 10 Kbs raw data speeds or compressed data?

John Navas

2005-08-30, 5:48 am

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < 2005082420305275249%
magnusspamridolph@sp
ymaccom> on Wed, 24 Aug 2005
20:30:52 -0400, Ridolph < magnusspamridolph@sp
ymac.com> wrote:

>Is there an accelerated proxy server available (even by subscription,
>or software that I could put on my own server) for TMO which would
>increase the speed? Like Venturi on Verizon?

Many ISPs offer them for dial-up.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas

2005-08-30, 5:48 am

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <MTGPe.1882$Bc2.1582@trnddc06> on Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:51:08 GMT, J
Robertson <jrnews1@att.biz> wrote:

>My experience is that the data transfer on the EDGE PC card (Sony
>Ericsson) is now less that it was. Before on a good day I could get
>80kbits/sec download rate but now often only 5 to 10. Also it downloads
>some then just stops. Sort of like they have a limit on the number of
>bytes you can download in one session. I have not been able to get an
>answer from Cingular about this.

My own experience in the SF Bay Area is that speeds in general are just as
good as ever, notwithstanding occasional network problems.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas

2005-08-30, 5:48 am

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <gnjQe.15378$ih4.4378@fe02.lga> on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 08:55:19 -0500,
"Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com> wrote:

>My old CDMA card on Sprint runs at a hardware 144Kbs but because of
>compression the sustained rate while not moving is usually between 300 and
>408Kbs. At 80mph, transfer rates drop to a little over 200Kbs.

No offense, but that doesn't add up -- compression is much less effective than
that on real world data.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

J Robertson

2005-09-01, 11:48 pm

Thurman wrote:
> "J Robertson" <jrnews1@att.biz> wrote in message
> news:MTGPe.1882$Bc2.1582@trnddc06...
>
>
>
> My old CDMA card on Sprint runs at a hardware 144Kbs but because of
> compression the sustained rate while not moving is usually between 300 and
> 408Kbs. At 80mph, transfer rates drop to a little over 200Kbs.
>
> I tested the new Verizon cards in a notebook and non-moving. They get burst
> rates up to 4Mbs but their data coverage is only slightly better than a
> barbed wire fence.
>
> Is your 5 to 10 Kbs raw data speeds or compressed data?
>
>
Uncompressed. It has somewhat improved the last week. But still not
much above 30 kb/s average. Peaks of 130 for a few msec. The only
thing Cingular has going with this EDGE is that it is all over. All the
AT&T towers had it and I think they added it to the 800 mhz band on the
Cingular towers. At least I heard they were going to.

Cingular now is really tight lipped about what is happening to their
data network. They were going to offer UMTS here about now but, that
plan seams to have been abandoned. In January they were quoted in an
magazine as saying they would have HSDPA in 20 markets by end of this
year and that they would skip the UMTS altogether. The guys in their
stores don't have a clue.

John Navas

2005-09-02, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <klORe.17770$um2.10684@trnddc03> on Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:58:40 GMT, J
Robertson <jrnews1@att.biz> wrote:

>Thurman wrote:
>Uncompressed. It has somewhat improved the last week. But still not
>much above 30 kb/s average. Peaks of 130 for a few msec. ...

Cingular EGPRS(EDGE) performance continues to be good here in the San
Francisco Bay Area. See screen captures of network throughput for FTP at
<http://j.navas.home.att.net/cingula...ed_9-1-2005.htm>
Note that speeds are relatively steady at near full speed for the two
different devices I tested (Motorola V551 and Sony Ericsson GC82),
97 Kbps (EGPRS Class 4) and 133 Kbps (EGPRS Class 10) respectively.
While I have seen some data network problems from time to time, this is
typical of my experiences with Cingular since EGPRS was rolled out here.

>Cingular now is really tight lipped about what is happening to their
>data network. They were going to offer UMTS here about now but, that
>plan seams to have been abandoned. In January they were quoted in an
>magazine as saying they would have HSDPA in 20 markets by end of this
>year and that they would skip the UMTS altogether. The guys in their
>stores don't have a clue.

Indeed they don't, which isn't terribly surprising, and I'd personally call
this a sensible and common business practice rather than "really tight lipped"
given the complexities of blue and orange network integration, which is
probably a higher priority (given its importance to all subscribers) than new
higher-speed data service (with EGPRS/EDGE is already in place, and limited
demand for higher-speed data). I think it makes sense to not make promises or
even forecasts that might be difficult to keep.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

J Robertson

2005-09-02, 11:48 pm

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <klORe.17770$um2.10684@trnddc03> on Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:58:40 GMT, J
> Robertson <jrnews1@att.biz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Cingular EGPRS(EDGE) performance continues to be good here in the San
> Francisco Bay Area. See screen captures of network throughput for FTP at
> <http://j.navas.home.att.net/cingula...ed_9-1-2005.htm>
> Note that speeds are relatively steady at near full speed for the two
> different devices I tested (Motorola V551 and Sony Ericsson GC82),
> 97 Kbps (EGPRS Class 4) and 133 Kbps (EGPRS Class 10) respectively.
> While I have seen some data network problems from time to time, this is
> typical of my experiences with Cingular since EGPRS was rolled out here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Indeed they don't, which isn't terribly surprising, and I'd personally call
> this a sensible and common business practice rather than "really tight lipped"
> given the complexities of blue and orange network integration, which is
> probably a higher priority (given its importance to all subscribers) than new
> higher-speed data service (with EGPRS/EDGE is already in place, and limited
> demand for higher-speed data). I think it makes sense to not make promises or
> even forecasts that might be difficult to keep.
>
On the speed in San Francisco. That is one of the places where they
already have UMTS if memory serves. Performance reported there is
something I have never seen with the GC83 card. Cingular replaced it
and it has current firmware. No difference. I also have three different
Thinkpad models that I have tried it in. Same performance. Most of my
experience is in the NY and DC areas however I did use it in LA and
Seattle. Things not much different there.

On the business front. Cingular is losing the data business to Verizon
and now T-Mobile that they are working on HSDPA. Maybe they are going to
forfeit that market.

John Navas

2005-09-03, 5:48 am

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <e_6Se.1001$AB4.971@trnddc03> on Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:27:38 GMT, J Robertson
<jrnews1@att.biz> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

[color=darkred]
>On the speed in San Francisco. That is one of the places where they
>already have UMTS if memory serves.

Correct, inherited from ATTWS.

>Performance reported there is
>something I have never seen with the GC83 card. Cingular replaced it
>and it has current firmware. No difference. I also have three different
>Thinkpad models that I have tried it in. Same performance. Most of my
>experience is in the NY and DC areas however I did use it in LA and
>Seattle. Things not much different there.

Then I strongly suspect something wrong in your configuration. Have you tried
Sony Ericsson's Wireless Manager instead of Cingular software? Have you
monitored speed and packet loss?

>On the business front. Cingular is losing the data business to Verizon
>and now T-Mobile that they are working on HSDPA. Maybe they are going to
>forfeit that market.

Say what? T-Mobile is dead last, and Cingular has better data coverage
nationwide than Verizon.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

J Robertson

2005-09-03, 5:48 pm

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <e_6Se.1001$AB4.971@trnddc03> on Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:27:38 GMT, J Robertson
> <jrnews1@att.biz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Correct, inherited from ATTWS.
>
>
>
>
> Then I strongly suspect something wrong in your configuration. Have you tried
> Sony Ericsson's Wireless Manager instead of Cingular software? Have you
> monitored speed and packet loss?
>
>
>
>
> Say what? T-Mobile is dead last, and Cingular has better data coverage
> nationwide than Verizon.
>
I have tested the performance with numerous tools and the best one, from
NIST if I recall correctly, states that the link is limited upstream. I
think there are three, maybe four, reasons your experience is different
from what we see in the Mid Atlantic.
1. UMTS is there in SF and was done by AT&T so they must have adequate
bandwidth available to the cell sites to support that. That would also
make lots of bandwidth available for EDGE.
2. The Limitatation, per knowledgeable people before Cingular gagged
them, is that there is not enough bandwidth at the cell sites and they
have programmed the system to service voice before data. So while class
10 can deliver four downlink channels, in practice Cingular only gives
one. And sometimes zero. (That would explain while at the Grand Hyatt
in NYC, with 100% signal I could not establish a data connection for
three days.)
3. For business reasons, Cingular wants former AT&T people to switch
to Cingular (they collect the early termination fee, sell new equipment,
get a new contract and charge higher fees, and move them to the Cingular
billing system) so as an incentive, they may have been (many complaints
to the FCC and FTC I think forced them to back off on this)
intentionally reducing connectivity to former AT&T devices. I was told
by a Cingular and former AT&T data specialist that they had changed the
system so that former AT&T customers could only connect to former AT&T
towers and that they had actually reduced the number of them. Just two
days ago, a Cingular store rep, told me with a tone of contempt in his
voice, you should know that if you switch to Cingular you will have much
better data service than if you stay with AT&T. (Somehow, I thought
Cingular and AT&T Wireless were now the same company.) Complaints on
the forum show that the problems are identical regardless of which SIM
card or account one has.
4. I hear that as part of the UMTS (HSDPA??) roll out here, they have
interrupted the data service for testing. Also I have continually heard
that they are having network integration problems. As an engineer, it is
a little hard for me to think that would be so difficult as it appears
to be, at least if they know what they are doing.

John Navas

2005-09-04, 2:48 am

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <l5hSe.8078$QN4.7818@trnddc02> on Sat, 03 Sep 2005 12:57:53 GMT, J
Robertson <jrnews1@att.biz> wrote:

>I have tested the performance with numerous tools and the best one, from
>NIST if I recall correctly, states that the link is limited upstream.

What's that supposed to mean?

>I
>think there are three, maybe four, reasons your experience is different
>from what we see in the Mid Atlantic.
>1. UMTS is there in SF and was done by AT&T so they must have adequate
>bandwidth available to the cell sites to support that. That would also
>make lots of bandwidth available for EDGE.

I'm using the "orange" (old Cingular) network, not the "blue" (ATTWS) network,
so that wouldn't apply.

>2. The Limitatation, per knowledgeable people before Cingular gagged
>them, is that there is not enough bandwidth at the cell sites and they
>have programmed the system to service voice before data. So while class
>10 can deliver four downlink channels,

Timeslots.

>in practice Cingular only gives
>one. And sometimes zero. (That would explain while at the Grand Hyatt
>in NYC, with 100% signal I could not establish a data connection for
>three days.)

You wrote:

My experience is that the data transfer on the EDGE PC card (Sony
Ericsson) is now less that it was. Before on a good day I could get
80kbits/sec download rate but now often only 5 to 10. Also it downloads
some then just stops. Sort of like they have a limit on the number of
bytes you can download in one session. ...

Your timeslot limitation theory wouldn't explain that. With a timeslot limit,
you should still see a steady speed, just lower. 80 Kbps might indeed be two
timeslots, but even one timeslot would be 40 Kbps (not "only 5 to 10").

>3. For business reasons, Cingular wants former AT&T people to switch
>to Cingular

Yep.

>(they collect the early termination fee,

Nope.

>sell new equipment,

Needed for the "orange" network.

>get a new contract

Yep.

>and charge higher fees,

Not necessarily.

>and move them to the Cingular
>billing system) so as an incentive, they may have been (many complaints
>to the FCC and FTC I think forced them to back off on this)
>intentionally reducing connectivity to former AT&T devices.

I've seen no real evidence of that.

>I was told
>by a Cingular and former AT&T data specialist that they had changed the
>system so that former AT&T customers could only connect to former AT&T
>towers and that they had actually reduced the number of them.

Only for TDMA -- "blue" (old ATTWS) *GSM* customers have free roaming on
"orange" (Cingular).

>Just two
>days ago, a Cingular store rep, told me with a tone of contempt in his
>voice, you should know that if you switch to Cingular you will have much
>better data service than if you stay with AT&T.

What does it matter what one store rep might say?

>(Somehow, I thought
>Cingular and AT&T Wireless were now the same company.)

Same company, different networks.

>Complaints on
>the forum show that the problems are identical regardless of which SIM
>card or account one has.

I disagree.

>4. I hear that as part of the UMTS (HSDPA??) roll out here, they have
>interrupted the data service for testing. Also I have continually heard
>that they are having network integration problems.

Why do you put so much stock in rumors?

>As an engineer, it is
>a little hard for me to think that would be so difficult as it appears
>to be, at least if they know what they are doing.

It is in fact a hard job.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

J Robertson

2005-09-04, 5:48 pm

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <l5hSe.8078$QN4.7818@trnddc02> on Sat, 03 Sep 2005 12:57:53 GMT, J
> Robertson <jrnews1@att.biz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> What's that supposed to mean?

That means that the bandwidth available to data is less than advertised
and under control of the carrier no inherent in the technology.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm using the "orange" (old Cingular) network, not the "blue" (ATTWS) network,
> so that wouldn't apply.
>
>
>
>
> Timeslots.
>
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>
> My experience is that the data transfer on the EDGE PC card (Sony
> Ericsson) is now less that it was. Before on a good day I could get
> 80kbits/sec download rate but now often only 5 to 10. Also it downloads
> some then just stops. Sort of like they have a limit on the number of
> bytes you can download in one session. ...
>
> Your timeslot limitation theory wouldn't explain that. With a timeslot limit,
> you should still see a steady speed, just lower. 80 Kbps might indeed be two
> timeslots, but even one timeslot would be 40 Kbps (not "only 5 to 10").
>
There are a number of things that can result in poor performance and
they can occur in combination. I am listing some of those. You should
not try to account for it all with one only.

>
>
>
> Yep.
>
>
>
>
> Nope.
Store told me otherwise.
>
>
>
>
> Needed for the "orange" network.
>
>
>
>
> Yep.
>
>
>
>
> Not necessarily.
>
>
>
>
> I've seen no real evidence of that.
Does not mean it is not happening.
>
>
>
>
> Only for TDMA -- "blue" (old ATTWS) *GSM* customers have free roaming on
> "orange" (Cingular).

That makes sense.
>
>
>
>
> What does it matter what one store rep might say?

Yes it absolutely does. In the absence of any formal statements from
Cingular, the store rep is the official voice of Cingular. No you or
others on the forums.
>
>
>
>
> Same company, different networks.

I don't care, One customer one company. Cingular in my opinion is doing
a very bad job and is not at the level of ethics or professionalism that
I enjoyed with AT&T
>
>
>
>
> I disagree.

If a new sim and device is needed to get advertised performance then it
should be provided without cost.
>
>
>
>
> Why do you put so much stock in rumors?
Because Cingular will not say anything officially, despite many requests.
>
>
>
>
> It is in fact a hard job.

Hard is relative to ability and motivation.
>

John Navas

2005-09-13, 2:21 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <HeESe.12343$IT4.8180@trnddc04> on Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:17:59 GMT, J
Robertson <jrnews1@att.biz> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>That means that the bandwidth available to data is less than advertised

Advertised? Really? Where?

>and under control of the carrier no inherent in the technology.

Equally true of other higher-speed data services.

>There are a number of things that can result in poor performance and
>they can occur in combination. I am listing some of those.

What you are listing isn't valid.

>You should
>not try to account for it all with one only.

What I wrote is correct.

>Store told me otherwise.

Stores aren't reliable sources of accurate information.

[color=darkred]
>Does not mean it is not happening.

Proof (not just guesswork)?

>
>Yes it absolutely does. In the absence of any formal statements from
>Cingular, the store rep is the official voice of Cingular. ...

The "official voice of Cingular" comes only from corporate.

>
>I don't care, One customer one company. Cingular in my opinion is doing
>a very bad job and is not at the level of ethics or professionalism that
>I enjoyed with AT&T

I find Cingular better than ATTWS, which was well known for customer service
issues in the last year or so of its life.

>If a new sim and device is needed to get advertised performance then it
>should be provided without cost.

Again, what "advertised" performance? Please provide a link to support that
claim.

[color=darkred]
>Because Cingular will not say anything officially, despite many requests.

Not a good reason.

>
>Hard is relative to ability and motivation.

Indeed -- to those not properly trained, it's even harder.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

2006-01-16, 5:48 pm

>My old CDMA card on Sprint runs at a hardware 144Kbs but because of
>compression the sustained rate while not moving is usually between 300 and
>408Kbs. At 80mph, transfer rates drop to a little over 200Kbs.
>
>I tested the new Verizon cards in a notebook and non-moving. They get burst
>rates up to 4Mbs but their data coverage is only slightly better than a
>barbed wire fence.

I have a VZW card in my laptop, and in NYC it's almost like
broadband. Their high-speed data is the only mobile high-speed data
option that offers high speed, at least that I know of. I would love
to move to GSM, but nothing comparable is available.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens & digital camera reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

LinkBot