Slow Data Transfers?

I am evaluating an Ipaq 6515 on Cingular with data plan.
I've been testing with FTP with disappointing results,
slower than dialup.

I thought the data plans were supposed to be much faster.
--
Chuck Forsberg [email protected] www.omen.com 503-614-0430
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 FAX 629-0665

---

› See More: Slow Data Transfers?

56k bits (not bytes) /sec, no pop3, no news server,no web space,

$60. plus a month I'm really rethinking it my self.

Chuck,

I notice you are in Portland which is one of the cities that 3G has
been
deployed. WIth the HSPDA/UMTS data plan ($60/month)I get
200k - 900k speeds. I use the Sierra Wireless Air card in my PC
but understand that there is soon to be several phones that will have
HSPDA capability incorporated. Outside of the 3G area it downshifts
to GPRS where I get about 40k - 70k speeds.

Jeff

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

In <[email protected]> on 25 Apr 2006
08:09:21 -0700, "jlp" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Chuck,
>
>I notice you are in Portland which is one of the cities that 3G has
>been
>deployed. WIth the HSPDA/UMTS data plan ($60/month)I get
>200k - 900k speeds. I use the Sierra Wireless Air card in my PC
>but understand that there is soon to be several phones that will have
>HSPDA capability incorporated. Outside of the 3G area it downshifts
>to GPRS where I get about 40k - 70k speeds.
>
>Jeff

You should be able to get faster EGPRS(EDGE) speeds (up to about 170 Kbps) in
many areas that aren't covered by HSDPA.

--
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 Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:58:54
-0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R <[email protected]> wrote:

>I am evaluating an Ipaq 6515 on Cingular with data plan.
>I've been testing with FTP with disappointing results,
>slower than dialup.
>
>I thought the data plans were supposed to be much faster.

Depends on which data service you're using. See the FAQ below for available
data options.

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

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:58:54 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R
<[email protected]> wrote:

>slower than dialup. (FTP)

A couple things to point out re cellular data

I notice latency is running around 1.4 seconds.

(Hmmm. last week, in Kansas City, I think I saw
800-900ms, still, an awfully long time.)

Not sure what explains that - most WiFi's I've
used are well under 200ms. Does it have to
take that long? It's almost as bad as off an
earth orbiting satellite.

This can cause serious degradation, if you
are not running some form of 'sliding Zmodem'
or whatever it was called in the good old days.

Second, it's worthwhile experimenting with
DNS server choices. Some are far better
than others but so far, in maybe ten cities,
I can't give any general rules. Some local
ones seem to be okay, other times it's
faster to spend 30 to 50 ms and specify a
more distant but otherwise faster responding
one. Your mileage may vary.

I frequently roam on Cingular GSM (you can't
buy it from them, only roam on it) and also
Westlink, who has some of their network
running Edge (with more due real soon now)

What I particularly like about Westlink is that
they allow data to roamers - and they are
mostly 850, which T-Mobile doesn't offer
at all.

In other words, if coverage is an issue,
make sure you have both 850 and 1900
covered in your cellular data device.

Favorite 'analysis tools' here are AnalogX's
Netstat Live!, and PingPlotter.

We could probably use a list of reliable speed
checking sites. If anybody has one. Meantime
I find IBM's hard drive data sheets (in PDF)
come off some really fast servers - on cable
I get up to around 5-6 megabits, and those
will often come across at 2.5 to 3 megabits.
More than enough to test cellular data speed
(real world) in any of today's flavors. (No, of
course not 2.5 to 3 megabits on CELLULAR)

Bill

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:58:54 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I am evaluating an Ipaq 6515 on Cingular with data plan.
>I've been testing with FTP with disappointing results,
>slower than dialup.
>
>I thought the data plans were supposed to be much faster.

Hey, Forsberg!

Any word on former MicroCornucopians these days?

re: cellular data

I used to use Sierra 750 and Merlin G100 aircards, both
get 45-70kbits with decent signal quality. Recently upgraded
to Sierra 775, and have seen 170kbits in Edge coverage
areas.

Don't know specifics of Ipaq's; how many 'voice channels'
are they set up to use? One voice channel equals roughly
9.6kbits, the earlier aircards I mentioned use FOUR. And
I'm not sure how the Edge cards get what amounts to the
equivalent of nearly twenty.

I think I've heard Compact Flash sized aircards can
also run Edge - can your Ipaq take one?

Phones are no good for serious data transfer - they are
pretty much limited to one voice channel. One thing I
really like is getting the radar maps, with the power out,
and tornadoes/ hail in the area. (weatherunderground)

Bill

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:01:05
-0500, wild bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:58:54 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>slower than dialup. (FTP)
>
>A couple things to point out re cellular data
>
>I notice latency is running around 1.4 seconds.

Then you must have some serious problems -- it's typically much less than
that.

>(Hmmm. last week, in Kansas City, I think I saw
>800-900ms, still, an awfully long time.)

Even that is much worse than typical.

>Not sure what explains that - most WiFi's I've
>used are well under 200ms. Does it have to
>take that long? It's almost as bad as off an
>earth orbiting satellite.

GPRS/EGPRS trade latency for network efficiency. HSDPA is much better.

>This can cause serious degradation, if you
>are not running some form of 'sliding Zmodem'
>or whatever it was called in the good old days.

Due to TCP Receive Window, latency actually has relatively little effect on
most Internet work (e.g., HTTP, FTP). Where it hurts is in interactive access
(e.g., SSH).

>Second, it's worthwhile experimenting with
>DNS server choices. Some are far better
>than others but so far, in maybe ten cities,
>I can't give any general rules. Some local
>ones seem to be okay, other times it's
>faster to spend 30 to 50 ms and specify a
>more distant but otherwise faster responding
>one. Your mileage may vary.

The configured DNS servers work fine -- no reason to mess with them.

>I frequently roam on Cingular GSM (you can't
>buy it from them, only roam on it) and also
>Westlink, who has some of their network
>running Edge (with more due real soon now)

Why can't you buy Cingular GSM?

>In other words, if coverage is an issue,
>make sure you have both 850 and 1900
>covered in your cellular data device.

Good advice.

>We could probably use a list of reliable speed
>checking sites. If anybody has one.

My current favorite (thanks, Jeff): <http://netspeed.stanford.edu/>

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

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:34:01 -0500, wild bill wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:58:54 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I am evaluating an Ipaq 6515 on Cingular with data plan. I've been
>>testing with FTP with disappointing results, slower than dialup.
>>
>>I thought the data plans were supposed to be much faster.
>
> Hey, Forsberg!
>
> Any word on former MicroCornucopians these days?
>
> re: cellular data
>
> I used to use Sierra 750 and Merlin G100 aircards, both get 45-70kbits
> with decent signal quality. Recently upgraded to Sierra 775, and have seen
> 170kbits in Edge coverage areas.
>
> Don't know specifics of Ipaq's; how many 'voice channels' are they set up
> to use? One voice channel equals roughly 9.6kbits, the earlier aircards I
> mentioned use FOUR. And I'm not sure how the Edge cards get what amounts
> to the equivalent of nearly twenty.
>
> I think I've heard Compact Flash sized aircards can also run Edge - can
> your Ipaq take one?
>
> Phones are no good for serious data transfer - they are pretty much
> limited to one voice channel. One thing I really like is getting the radar
> maps, with the power out, and tornadoes/ hail in the area.
> (weatherunderground)
I forgot to mention in my original post that the "killer app" I had in
mind was to use the phone to upload pictures and video clips taken on a
digital camera. Both the camera and the 6515 take SD cards, so one
should be able to do this. I have been able to transfer files with the
"Get It" FTP client, but the throughput is horrible. There is a burst
of data, then it just sits there for many seconds until the next short
burst.

I've been told by a developer that Cingular purposely throttles such data
transfers. This explains the observed behavior.

The successor to the 6515 does not have the SD card slot, making it
useless for this killer application.

BTW I also want the camera (such as it is) and GPS included in the 6615.
Otherwise I stay with my Kyocera 7135 which is quite stable without
AvantGO.


--
Chuck Forsberg [email protected] www.omen.com 503-614-0430
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 FAX 629-0665

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:04:37
-0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R <[email protected]> wrote:

>I forgot to mention in my original post that the "killer app" I had in
>mind was to use the phone to upload pictures and video clips taken on a
>digital camera. Both the camera and the 6515 take SD cards, so one
>should be able to do this. I have been able to transfer files with the
>"Get It" FTP client, but the throughput is horrible. There is a burst
>of data, then it just sits there for many seconds until the next short
>burst.

Sounds like either packet loss (the usual cause of pauses) or something wrong
with the configuration.

>I've been told by a developer that Cingular purposely throttles such data
>transfers. This explains the observed behavior.

I'm a heavy user of Cingular EGPRS(EDGE) over low-cost MEdia Net, and I've
seen no evidence of any such throttle by Cingular. I think that's just another
Internet Myth (subspecies of FUD) that probably got started by someone who
doesn't really understand what's going on.

Throughput is affected by many things, including signal strength, class of
device, network load, and local configuration. Uploading is much slower than
downloading due to network and device configuration.

Although the 6515 is an EGPRS Class 10 device, the implementation may be poor,
since download speed reportedly tops out at about 100 Kbps, which is no better
than my EGPRS Class 4 Motorola V551 handset. A good EGPRS Class 10 device like
my Sony Ericsson GC82 is able to go up to 170 Kbps or so on Cingular in a good
signal area.

>The successor to the 6515 does not have the SD card slot, making it
>useless for this killer application.

How about transfer over USB cable?

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

John Navas wrote:
> My current favorite (thanks, Jeff): <http://netspeed.stanford.edu/>

It looks keen, but I routinely get more than the reported 2.32Mbps.
Also seems odd they'd call the difference between my cable modem's
upload and download speeds a "serious problem"; that's going to happen
with any cable or ADSL connection.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:54:41 -0500,
clifto <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> My current favorite (thanks, Jeff): <http://netspeed.stanford.edu/>
>
>It looks keen, but I routinely get more than the reported 2.32Mbps.
>Also seems odd they'd call the difference between my cable modem's
>upload and download speeds a "serious problem"; that's going to happen
>with any cable or ADSL connection.

It's far from perfect -- I know of other issues -- but it's nonetheless a
useful tool.

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

John Navas wrote:
> clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> My current favorite (thanks, Jeff): <http://netspeed.stanford.edu/>
>>
>>It looks keen, but I routinely get more than the reported 2.32Mbps.
>>Also seems odd they'd call the difference between my cable modem's
>>upload and download speeds a "serious problem"; that's going to happen
>>with any cable or ADSL connection.
>
> It's far from perfect -- I know of other issues -- but it's nonetheless a
> useful tool.

Agreed. The detailed report gives oodles of good information, almost too
much (if there's such a thing). It did tell me my speed may be limited
by a 128K comm buffer, so I'm searching through linux trying to find what
allocates that and up the size a bit.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

wild bill wrote:

> I notice latency is running around 1.4 seconds.
>
> (Hmmm. last week, in Kansas City, I think I saw
> 800-900ms, still, an awfully long time.)

Hmm, those ARE really long ping times, so I'm not sure what's going on
there. The 500-600ms range though, is pretty much the norm.

> Not sure what explains that - most WiFi's I've
> used are well under 200ms. Does it have to
> take that long?

Well, yes. A WiFi access point is generally only a couple hundred feet
away at most and might typically have maybe 20 or so users, max. Most
cell sites are anywhere from half a mile to two or three miles away, and
can have several dozens or even tens of dozens of voice AND data users
vying for the same bandwidth.

> It's almost as bad as off an
> earth orbiting satellite.

Actually, an Earth Orbiting Satellite will typically offer ping times of
2000ms.



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

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:26:37 +0000, John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:04:37
> -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I forgot to mention in my original post that the "killer app" I had in
>>mind was to use the phone to upload pictures and video clips taken on a
>>digital camera. Both the camera and the 6515 take SD cards, so one
>>should be able to do this. I have been able to transfer files with the
>>"Get It" FTP client, but the throughput is horrible. There is a burst of
>>data, then it just sits there for many seconds until the next short
>>burst.
>
> Sounds like either packet loss (the usual cause of pauses) or something
> wrong with the configuration.
>
>>I've been told by a developer that Cingular purposely throttles such data
>>transfers. This explains the observed behavior.
>
> I'm a heavy user of Cingular EGPRS(EDGE) over low-cost MEdia Net, and I've
> seen no evidence of any such throttle by Cingular. I think that's just
> another Internet Myth (subspecies of FUD) that probably got started by
> someone who doesn't really understand what's going on.
>
> Throughput is affected by many things, including signal strength, class of
> device, network load, and local configuration. Uploading is much slower
> than downloading due to network and device configuration.
>
> Although the 6515 is an EGPRS Class 10 device, the implementation may be
> poor, since download speed reportedly tops out at about 100 Kbps, which is
> no better than my EGPRS Class 4 Motorola V551 handset. A good EGPRS Class
> 10 device like my Sony Ericsson GC82 is able to go up to 170 Kbps or so on
> Cingular in a good signal area.
>
>>The successor to the 6515 does not have the SD card slot, making it
>>useless for this killer application.
>
> How about transfer over USB cable?
A theoretical possibility, given use of a cable adapter of some sort
(USB female to USB female).

I am taking the 6515 back. It's close but no cigar.
Perhaps I am spoiled by the obsolete Kyocera 7135, but
I expect a $$$ PDA/phone to come with tools to install
my own ringtones. I expect an expensive phone to come
with voice dial. I expect to answer calls with one hand
without having to look at the phone. I expect to hear the
other party with normal settings. In this day and age I expect
the GPS to figure out where it is cold/warm start) without
having to place a data call. And I expect a data phone
to smoothly transfer data at close to the advertised speed.

I see uploading digital pics to one's home system as
a "killer app". Such a phone could be designed today
but there is no guarantee it will.
--
Chuck Forsberg [email protected] www.omen.com 503-614-0430
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 FAX 629-0665