3G in my area

To JN: Balony!

I am here in NY harbor right now. I have Cingular's EDGE service and
my coworker has Verizon's ED-VO service.

I did several speedtests. Following are my results. And no, I did not
confuse upload and download speeds. Both the EDGE and ED-VO speed
tests were done from the same location, to the same site, within 5
minutes of one another. I also tried disconnecting and reconnecting to
the service, but no real changes resulted. BTW, I had 5 bars of signal
strength when I did these tests. Admittedly, my speeds are usually
better, but near NYC, I'm just lucky to have a stable connection.
Note, I have seen EDGE download speeds of up to 200 KBPS in some areas.

Download Upload - EDGE
24 87
32 64
40 80
30 105

Download Upload - ED-VO
528 61

I have never seen any speeds on EDGE approaching 528 KBPS! You tell
me, which is the TRUE 3G network?! {I am not making any claims
regarding UTMS here}

This test also tends to confirm statements made elseware that Verizon's
service is superior to Cingular's in the NYC area. Cingular just can't
handle the traffic as well as Verizon can (at least in this area).
Otherwise, EDGE would be up to the task here in NYC and give at least
advertised download rates.

---

› See More: 3G in my area

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

In <[email protected]> on 7 Dec 2005
22:13:40 -0800, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:

>To JN: Balony!

Noted.

>I have never seen any speeds on EDGE approaching 528 KBPS! You tell
>me, which is the TRUE 3G network?! ...

Both (EDGE and EV-DO).

Is EV-DO sometimes faster than EDGE? Yes.
Is EV-DO sometimes slower than EDGE? Also yes.

What matters is the typical speed, not the peak speed.
I can't speak for your area, but here in the SF Bay Area,
EDGE (Class 10) is quite consistent at about 150 Kbps.
By comparison, EV-DO ranges from about 100 Kbps to about
300 Kbps, with a typical speed of about 170 Kbps.
Thus there isn't much difference between them.
Perhaps there is more excess EV-DO network capacity
in your area.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

As a matter of fact my coworker on Verizon EV-DO performed another
speed test after we left NY harbor for LI sound. He got 775 KBPS down,
60 KBPS up. This is without the Venturi feature enabled.

I performed a large file download with my Cingular EDGE connection in
LI sound and saw download speeds for a couple of minutes hovering
around 220 KBPS, with one spike of 240 KBPS.

EV-DO knocks the pants off of EDGE. I just hope UTMS/HSDPA performs as
well as EV-DO when it is available in the areas I travel.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on 6 Dec 2005
> 10:40:20 -0800, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I see no 3G HSDPA/UMTS maps in your link, or your links links. Doesn't
> >help the OP much.
>
> He's talking about "EDGE".
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>


3G and Edge are not the same thing.

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:53:53
GMT, "Cliff" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on 6 Dec 2005
>> 10:40:20 -0800, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I see no 3G HSDPA/UMTS maps in your link, or your links links. Doesn't
>> >help the OP much.
>>
>> He's talking about "EDGE".

>3G and Edge are not the same thing.

Nokia, Sony Ericsson and other major players disagree.
(See my prior posts for links.)

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> Nokia, Sony Ericsson and other major players disagree.
> (See my prior posts for links.)

Yeah, they'd sell you a bridge in Brooklyn if they could. LOL
Anytime you believe marketing hype, you're in trouble.
Or as someone once said: "There's a sucker born every minute".

What matters is real world performance. Doesn't 'almost' everyone
agree?

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

In <[email protected]> on 8 Dec 2005
09:57:22 -0800, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:

>As a matter of fact my coworker on Verizon EV-DO performed another
>speed test after we left NY harbor for LI sound. He got 775 KBPS down,
>60 KBPS up. This is without the Venturi feature enabled.
>
>I performed a large file download with my Cingular EDGE connection in
>LI sound and saw download speeds for a couple of minutes hovering
>around 220 KBPS, with one spike of 240 KBPS.

Something is almost certainly wrong with your testing, because those speeds
are very unlikely in the real world. I suspect caching.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> Something is almost certainly wrong with your testing, because those speeds
> are very unlikely in the real world. I suspect caching.

The first time he ran the test he got 528 KBPS. No chance for caching
there. The later tests, maybe. But I don't think so. Although he did
run the later tests when I wasn't around. As far as my own testing on
EDGE goes, I always clear the cache between tests - just in case.

When he got 528 KBPS, we were in NY harbor and I was getting GPRS
download speeds on my EDGE connection. When we were in LI Sound, he
got 775 KBPS down, and I got some of the best EDGE speeds I have seen.
The area you are located in makes a huge difference - at least with
EDGE.

>From Verizon's website regarding EV-DO:
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/m...ceoverview.jsp

> Speed
> Quickly download complex files and view email attachments with average download
> speeds of 400-700 kbps capable of reaching up to 2.0Mbps.

The REAL world. It's where I live. ; = )

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

In <[email protected]> on 12 Dec 2005
16:05:08 -0800, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

>In <[email protected]> on 8 Dec 2005
>09:57:22 -0800, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>As a matter of fact my coworker on Verizon EV-DO performed another
>>speed test after we left NY harbor for LI sound. He got 775 KBPS down,
>>60 KBPS up. This is without the Venturi feature enabled.
>>
>>I performed a large file download with my Cingular EDGE connection in
>>LI sound and saw download speeds for a couple of minutes hovering
>>around 220 KBPS, with one spike of 240 KBPS.

>> Something is almost certainly wrong with your testing, because those speeds
>> are very unlikely in the real world. I suspect caching.
>
>The first time he ran the test he got 528 KBPS. No chance for caching
>there. The later tests, maybe. But I don't think so. Although he did
>run the later tests when I wasn't around. As far as my own testing on
>EDGE goes, I always clear the cache between tests - just in case.

Here's why I'm very skeptical:

Current GPRS and EDGE implementations are limited to 4 time slots.
Theoretical maximum raw speeds (including overhead) are:

* 80 Kbps (4 x 20.0 Kbps) for GPRS with CS4 coding.
* 237 Kbps (4 x 59.2 Kbps) for EDGE with MCS9 coding.

But those speeds won't normally be seen because the those particular codings
are very limited in range and very sensitive to errors. Thus in practice the
best raw speeds are:

* 58 Kbps (4 x 14.4 Kbps) for GPRS with CS3 coding.
* 179 Kbps (4 x 44.8 Kbps) for EDGE with MCS7 coding.

(Cingular initially deployed GPRS limited to CD2 coding, and only enabled CS3
coding when the system has proven itself.)

Net data throughput (less protocol and error correction overheads) is
significantly less, on the order of:

* 52 Kbps for GPRS
* 160 Kbps for EDGE

Thus, as I wrote, the EDGE speeds you're reporting are very unlikely in the
real world.

The issues are somewhat different for EV-DO (cell load is a factor), but the
speeds reported by your coworker are likewise far above expected real world
speeds. I can't speak for your area, but here in the SF Bay Area, actual
EV-DO downlink ranges from as low as 100 Kbps to about 300 Kbps. (1xRTT
likewise delivers typical speeds far below theoretical maximums.)

That's why I suspect caching, data compression, or measurement error.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

I wrote:
> I performed a large file download with my Cingular EDGE connection
> in LI sound and saw download speeds for a couple of minutes hovering
> around 220 KBPS, with one spike of 240 KBPS.

I was downloaded two large programs that morning: OpenOffice.org 2.0
and Java 1.5. I don't recall which program I was downloading when I
saw the above speeds. These speeds are what the Sony Ericsson Wireless
Manager reported; realtime.

My coworkers speeds and my first speed post was done by going to
dslreports.com and running a speedtest there. These speeds are what
the speed test web page reported.

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

In <[email protected]> on 12 Dec 2005
21:42:56 -0800, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I wrote:
>> I performed a large file download with my Cingular EDGE connection
>> in LI sound and saw download speeds for a couple of minutes hovering
>> around 220 KBPS, with one spike of 240 KBPS.
>
>I was downloaded two large programs that morning: OpenOffice.org 2.0
>and Java 1.5. I don't recall which program I was downloading when I
>saw the above speeds. These speeds are what the Sony Ericsson Wireless
>Manager reported; realtime.
>
>My coworkers speeds and my first speed post was done by going to
>dslreports.com and running a speedtest there. These speeds are what
>the speed test web page reported.

Don't depend on what programs report.
dslreports is notoriously unreliable.

For dependable results, download uncompressible data by FTP, time how long it
takes, and calculate throughput from size and time. Do at least three trials.
Restart the computer between successive trials.

Here's a good test file:
<ftp://ftp.sonic.net/pub/testfile.compressed.10meg>

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

The problem is, I've never seen EDGE to maintain a maximum speed
connection for more than a minute or two. I am not sure when I will
see the above speeds again, so who knows when I could do the FTP.
Anyway, I believe the Sony Ericsson Wireless Manager to be accurate in
the speeds it reports, and it reports realtime, not average time. Your
test would report average time. I pretty sure I wouldn't see my above
posted speeds as an average for a 10 MB download.

BTW, when you download software like OpenOffice.org 2.0 or Java 1.5,
they are uncompressable files. They have been compressed already by
the software developer. Also of course, they are not in the cache.

Another piece of software that I use on occasion is the Opera browser.
When I do file downloads with it, it shows the tranfer rate in
kilobytes per second (as opposed to kilobits per second). In the past,
I've seen MPEG downloads in Opera at speeds over 25 kilobytes per
second - translated that's 200 kilobits per second. MPEG's are
basically uncompressable.

Ah, if only I could get those high speeds all the time. Yesterday, I
was transitting the Delaware river. Speeds were horrible all day. Web
page loading was often up to 5 minutes per page. The pages were
loading in fits and starts. It's the latency that's really the pits
with EDGE. I would see the Sony Ericsson Wireless Manager's reported
speed drop to zero often for some seconds, then it would start up
again, retrieving the requested page. This is with a 3-5 bar signal.

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

In <[email protected]> on 13 Dec 2005
04:03:08 -0800, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The problem is, I've never seen EDGE to maintain a maximum speed
>connection for more than a minute or two. I am not sure when I will
>see the above speeds again, so who knows when I could do the FTP.

That would seem to support what I'm suggesting -- variation due to factors
I've mentioned.

>Anyway, I believe the Sony Ericsson Wireless Manager to be accurate in
>the speeds it reports,

I've seen too much inconsistency (e.g., 1000 versus 1024 for kilo, different
assumptions on bits per byte, different assumptions on overhead) to trust the
reporting in any software, which is why I rely on my own timing to ensure
accuracy and consistency. That's why (the question of honesty aside) there's
just no way to meaningfully compare most reported speeds on Usenet.

>and it reports realtime, not average time. Your
>test would report average time.

Flash readings are definitely unreliable due to things like buffering in the
comm channel, error recovery, etc.

>I pretty sure I wouldn't see my above
>posted speeds as an average for a 10 MB download.

With all due respect, higher flash speeds aren't meaningful.

>BTW, when you download software like OpenOffice.org 2.0 or Java 1.5,
>they are uncompressable files. They have been compressed already by
>the software developer.

Some are; some aren't. You can't be sure unless you subject the data to
analysis (e.g., by trying to compress it further). That's why it's best to
use a reliable synthetic test file like the one I cited.

>Also of course, they are not in the cache.

On successive trials they may well be.

>Another piece of software that I use on occasion is the Opera browser.
>When I do file downloads with it, it shows the tranfer rate in
>kilobytes per second (as opposed to kilobits per second). In the past,
>I've seen MPEG downloads in Opera at speeds over 25 kilobytes per
>second - translated that's 200 kilobits per second. MPEG's are
>basically uncompressable.

Not necessarily. Again, it's best to use a reliable synthetic test file like
the one I cited.

>Ah, if only I could get those high speeds all the time. Yesterday, I
>was transitting the Delaware river. Speeds were horrible all day. Web
>page loading was often up to 5 minutes per page. The pages were
>loading in fits and starts.

You're not alone -- Cingular data has been erratic here in the Bay Area for
almost a week. I think the rollout of HSDPA may be a factor.

>It's the latency that's really the pits
>with EDGE.

Other than these recent network problems, EDGE latency has been surprisingly
low here in the Bay Area.

>I would see the Sony Ericsson Wireless Manager's reported
>speed drop to zero often for some seconds, then it would start up
>again, retrieving the requested page. This is with a 3-5 bar signal.

That's probably error correction, packet loss, or network congestion, not
latency per se. Except for the initial access latency, HTTP is capable of
uninterrupted transfers over high latency paths.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Sorry but I don't buy into your arguements. Just a lot of words to
obscure the facts. Although you spew a bunch of technical jargon, that
doesn't give validity to your arguements. Politicians spew out a lot
of double-talk too; expounding their 'truths'. Should we believe them?
I've not fit in with your stated opinion and limited user experience.
So you must contest.

If I have a different user experience than you, in your world I must be
wrong. I don't contest your personal findings. But I do contest your
extrapolating them to apply to all other users - including myself.

How does that song go by Carly Simon?
-----------------------------
The speeds I received occurred over a several minute time period. I
was moving at the time, so it's not surprising that my connection would
wane after a while. This particular area in LI Sound, in the wee hours
of the morning, happened to offer the best EDGE speeds I've seen. I've
had EDGE service for some 9-months now. I've seen speeds all over the
map. Some days in some areas usually in the wee hours of the morning,
I will average 200 - 220 KBPS for a time. This is NOT my average EDGE
service overall. The other day in the Deleware River, I couldn't even
average 50 KPBS.

The latest firmware update for the GC83 - R4D9 shows EDGE or GPRS in
the green triangle above the signal strength bars when using Sony
Ericsson's Wireless Manager. I never could tell before, but now I
occasionally see that I am getting GPRS not EDGE. Yet even when it
displays that I am on EDGE (literally and figuratively) there are still
times I can only get 25 - 50 KBPS service. : > (

Achieving 240 Kbps is possible under ideal conditions - but not likely
to be sustained over a period of time. The number of users accessing
the cell tower makes a hugh difference in data thoroughput. I saw a
chart that shows 130 Kbps is achievable with about 40 users per sector.
Up that number to 100 users per sector, and your data rate will likely
drop to around 50 Kbps.

You stated previously:
> Current GPRS and EDGE implementations are limited to 4 time slots.
> Theoretical maximum raw speeds (including overhead) are:

> * 80 Kbps (4 x 20.0 Kbps) for GPRS with CS4 coding.
> * 237 Kbps (4 x 59.2 Kbps) for EDGE with MCS9 coding.

I've seen the above stated in a white paper available from Cingular.

Interestingly the Sony Ericsson GC83 User Guide specifies the
following:
* 247.40 Kbps (4 X 61.85 Kbps) for EDGE with MCS-9 coding.

GomJabbar wrote:
> If I (GomJaber) have a different user experience than you (Navas), in your world I must be
> wrong.

"Now you get it!"