Accelerated vs Non-Accelerated speeds

I have been using both the Accelerated and Non-Accelerated connections
for the past week and noticed the Accelerated one is often useless at times.

I've come to the conclusion the problem is in the Accelerated connection
process. I'm using the term "process" to cover all bases in case John
Navas wants to be nit-picky about *incorrect* terminology.

Issue encountered:
Web pages very slow to load, if at all. Data transfers in the Windows
DUN and Cingular Connection Manager show no data being uploaded or
downloaded, or very slow download rates - like .01 KB per ten seconds.
Sometimes there is no problem, 150 Kbps speeds observed using the Intel
website download test tool.
http://www.intel.com/personal/resour.../speedtest.htm

Test conditions:
* On four different laptops with Windows XP Pro and Home.
* On three different phones, two V557s and a V551.
* At several different locations all within 2 miles of a Cingular tower.
* At all hours of the day and night (to eliminate cell loading issues).
* Using the Windows DUN and Cingular Connection Manager.
* All phones using Bluetooth tethering - D-Link and IO-Gear bluetooth
devices.
* In the Dallas market zone (40 miles northwest of Fort Worth) - of
course John Navas will report no problem in the San Fransisco area.
* Observed during the past five days. No idea before then.
* Using the embedded Windows Bluetooth enumerator and device product
application.

Conclusion:
After narrowing the scope of the issue, it appears the only common
factor is using the Accelerated connection. The Non-Accelerated
connection consistently works.

The Accelerated connection is 3 times faster. Though windows says I am
connected at 1.8 megs. on either.

This is my 1st day using it here in Cols OH.

Accelerated works consistently well here, as well as for many other people;
i.e., the common factor is you, not Cingular.

In <PtNJf.22151$_S7.3048@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com > on Sat, 18 Feb 2006
22:47:11 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:

>I have been using both the Accelerated and Non-Accelerated connections
>for the past week and noticed the Accelerated one is often useless at times.
>
>I've come to the conclusion the problem is in the Accelerated connection
>process. I'm using the term "process" to cover all bases in case John
>Navas wants to be nit-picky about *incorrect* terminology.
>
>Issue encountered:
>Web pages very slow to load, if at all. Data transfers in the Windows
>DUN and Cingular Connection Manager show no data being uploaded or
>downloaded, or very slow download rates - like .01 KB per ten seconds.
>Sometimes there is no problem, 150 Kbps speeds observed using the Intel
>website download test tool.
>http://www.intel.com/personal/resour.../speedtest.htm
>
>Test conditions:
>* On four different laptops with Windows XP Pro and Home.
>* On three different phones, two V557s and a V551.
>* At several different locations all within 2 miles of a Cingular tower.
>* At all hours of the day and night (to eliminate cell loading issues).
>* Using the Windows DUN and Cingular Connection Manager.
>* All phones using Bluetooth tethering - D-Link and IO-Gear bluetooth
>devices.
>* In the Dallas market zone (40 miles northwest of Fort Worth) - of
>course John Navas will report no problem in the San Fransisco area.
>* Observed during the past five days. No idea before then.
>* Using the embedded Windows Bluetooth enumerator and device product
>application.
>
>Conclusion:
>After narrowing the scope of the issue, it appears the only common
>factor is using the Accelerated connection. The Non-Accelerated
>connection consistently works.

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

John Navas wrote:
> Accelerated works consistently well here, as well as for many other people;
> i.e., the common factor is you, not Cingular.

English isn't your first written language, is it?

Did you miss the Dallas market zone. Are you giving credible evidence
that you know for a fact that it isn't working here.

Sorry, John...yr gonna have to better than that.

randy wrote:
> The Accelerated connection is 3 times faster. Though windows says I am
> connected at 1.8 megs. on either.

That might be the Cingular advertised data speed. I'm talking about
actually observations. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know
if CNN takes 10 minutes to load there is an issue.

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

In <SvKKf.11053$rL5.10263@newssvr27.news.prodigy.ne t> on Tue, 21 Feb 2006
20:13:38 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> Accelerated works consistently well here, as well as for many other people;
>> i.e., the common factor is you, not Cingular.
>
>English isn't your first written language, is it?

It is, actually. And you?

>Did you miss the Dallas market zone.

Nope.

>Are you giving credible evidence

Yes.

>that you know for a fact that it isn't working here.
>
>Sorry, John...yr gonna have to better than that.

I'm be willing to bet serious money that it *is* working in the "Dallas market
zone." And you?

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

John Navas wrote:
> In <SvKKf.11053$rL5.10263@newssvr27.news.prodigy.ne t> on Tue, 21 Feb 2006
> 20:13:38 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:

>> Are you giving credible evidence
>
> Yes.

Sorry...you'll have to better than that.

John Navas wrote:
>> Are you giving credible evidence

Please cite your credible evidence was working in the Dallas market.

John Navas wrote:
> Accelerated works consistently well here, as well as for many other people;
> i.e., the common factor is you, not Cingular.

Not sure how you can make that statement when I described several other
users. Oh, wait...sure I can, but won't go there....

Issue appeared to clear up within the past few days.

Too bad you didn't see that I was describing the Dallas market which you
have NO direct experience with.