3G in my area

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

In <[email protected]> on 13 Dec 2005
12:20:07 -0800, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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. ...

Those are facts, not arguments. But whatever -- you are free to believe
whatever you want, just I'm free not to waste any more time posting facts.

FWIW, this kind of response is why I often don't bother re-posting facts --
I know from experience that certain folks are just going to reject them out of
hand.

>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.

That's not how GPRS works. What matters is (a) the number of users and (b)
the number of available data timeslots (which can vary considerably).

>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 also stated:

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.

>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.

The *data rate* of MCS-9 per timeslot is 59.2 Kbps per ETSI TS 145 001
<http://webapp.etsi.org/action/PU/20020129/ts_145001v040001p.pdf>.

That's the *raw* data rate -- throughput (exclusive of overhead) is less --
and MCS-9 isn't used in practice for EGPRS(EDGE), just as CS-4 (which would
give a raw speed of 80 Kbps) isn't used in practice for GPRS, for the reasons
I stated above.

I'm now done with this. Feel free to think whatever you want, and to have the
last word.

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

---

› See More: 3G in my area

GomJabbar wrote:
> I wrote:
>> EDGE is not 3G - it is considered 2.5G.
>
> John Navas wrote:
>> I disagree.
>
> Take your pick..............
>
> http://www.cnet.com/4520-7363_1-6361076-4.html
> http://www.mobilein.com/2.5G.htm
> http://www.devx.com/wireless/Door/11264
>
> There are some that consider EDGE 3G. But mainly they are basing that
> on the theoretical maximum thoroughput of EDGE which is 384 KBPS.
> Cingular does not approach that kind of speed with their EDGE network.

Cingular has never claimed that EDGE was 3G.

What they said was "EDGE is recognized as the most
economical way to overlay GSM/GPRS to achieve 3G
capabilities"

This statement is intentionally vague. 3G "capabilities"
which could mean a lot of things, i.e. services that
were expected to be available on 3G are now available
on EDGE, etc. This is in fact the same sort of claim the
Finnish carrier Sonera alluded to when they claimed that
they had deployed "3G."

Read "http://newsletter.nordicwirelesswatch.com/story.php?story_id=2133"

"There used be, before they were stolen, a couple of fairly
concrete criteria for 3G networks. One said that it must use
the 3GPP (3G Partnership Program) defined air interface
and the other that it must be capable of transmitting 2
megabits per second between the network and the 3G
handset."

GomJabbar wrote:

> 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}

Cingular does not claim that EDGE is 3G. Using the 3G air interface does
not make EDGE 3G. Navas has been claiming that EDGE is 3G for years, but
you will be hard-pressed to find anyone else in the world that believes
that.

> 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.

AT&T Wireless has had severe capacity issues in NYC. Cingular was using
the T-Mobile GSM network prior to the acquisition.

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:53:29
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>GomJabbar wrote:
>
>> 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}
>
>Cingular does not claim that EDGE is 3G. Using the 3G air interface does
>not make EDGE 3G. Navas has been claiming that EDGE is 3G for years, but
>you will be hard-pressed to find anyone else in the world that believes
>that.

I guess you're speaking for yourself. I have no such problem; e.g.,
<http://www.ericsson.com/products/hp/Mobile_Broadband_EDGE_bs.shtml>
<http://www.nokia.com/link?cid=EDITORIAL_1485>

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:49:22
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>GomJabbar wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> EDGE is not 3G - it is considered 2.5G.
>>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> I disagree.

Here is what you snipped:

<http://www.ericsson.com/products/hp/Mobile_Broadband_EDGE_bs.shtml>

EDGE is 3G radio technology that triples the high-speed data communication
capacity of GPRS-enhanced GSM networks, enabling GSM operators to provide
high-speed mobile Internet services over existing infrastructure and with
an existing GSM license.

<http://www.nokia.com/link?cid=EDITORIAL_1485>

The world's first GSM/GPRS/EDGE 3G phone, the Nokia 6200, was launched in
November 2002 and has been in shops since May 2003.

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

Again JN, you are giving theory as opposed to real life measured facts.
I have not had a decent EDGE connection in the last week to make any
further tests with EDGE worthwhile at this point. But my coworker did
perform some more EV-DO tests.

John Navas wrote:
> 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.

John Navas also wrote:
> 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>

OK, a couple of days ago my coworker on Verizon's EV-DO Broadband
Access performed the speed test from dslreports.com. The actual test
site we used for all speed tests was
http://middletown.speedtest.frontiernet.net/ . The cache was cleared
before and between all tests. He tested twice and got 1075 Kbps
download the first time and 966 Kbps download the second time.

Next he went to the site you posted and ran the test one time:
ftp://ftp.sonic.net/pub/testfile.compressed.10meg . I timed the
download from the time it started. It took 1minute, 18seconds. This
equals 78 seconds. Take 10 Mb X 1024 (1024 bytes to a megabyte) =
10,240 bytes. Divide 10,240 by 78 and you get 131.28 kilobytes/sec.
Multiply that by 8 and you get 1050 kilobits/sec. Sure a lot different
than the 'facts' you posted above. I see consistent speeds with EV-DO
under good conditions to be around 1000 Kbps. ' Smacks EDGE's behind.
LOL

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.

Noticed I said a "one spike of 240 KBPS". That's exactly what it was -
a spike. However I did see the speeds average around 220 KBPS for a
couple of minutes. Note that I did upgrade the firmware to R4D9 in my
GC83 card on Dec. 6th, 2005. The upgrade was supposed to 'improve
performance'. I don't know if it had any real effect or not.

Notice what PC Magazine wrote:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1770749,00.asp
> And though Class 10's theoretical maximum speed is 236 Kbps, we maxed
> out at 220 Kbps during testing. That's more than three times as fast as dial-up,
> but still much slower than cable, DSL, or EV-DO.

Hmmm.... Who to believe?