PTT latency is 1 second

I got to try Readylink this afternoon after an out of town business
meeting. "Volley" latency is indeed 1 second. Regular wireless voice
call to land line latency is 1/2 second so the overhead associated
with Readylink is only an extra 1/2 second.

For a half-duplex service this seems very usable to me.
(I dread to think that teenage girls would use this to gab away to up
to 5 friends simultaneously, unlimited!)

I await Rat Shack to get their Readylink phones going. I'd like to get
an FTP session going on the same tower to see what, if any, effect it
would have on the latency, while talking to someone via Readylink at a
different Rat Shack across town, on a different tower.

---

› See More: PTT latency is 1 second

[email protected] wrote:

> I got to try Readylink this afternoon after an out of town business
> meeting. "Volley" latency is indeed 1 second. Regular wireless voice
> call to land line latency is 1/2 second so the overhead associated
> with Readylink is only an extra 1/2 second.
>
> For a half-duplex service this seems very usable to me.
> (I dread to think that teenage girls would use this to gab away to up
> to 5 friends simultaneously, unlimited!)
>
> I await Rat Shack to get their Readylink phones going. I'd like to get
> an FTP session going on the same tower to see what, if any, effect it
> would have on the latency, while talking to someone via Readylink at a
> different Rat Shack across town, on a different tower.

Paul- what area of the country? This is a good report, but I wonder what
the network traffic was like.

To another phone in same room?

Even Sprint admits its latency is unacceptable, and says its RL is not suitable
for emergency services.

Sprint apologists are grasping at straws to find something good about
SprintPCS.

DSL GURU wrote:
> To another phone in same room?
>
> Even Sprint admits its latency is unacceptable, and says its RL is not suitable
> for emergency services.
>
> Sprint apologists are grasping at straws to find something good about
> SprintPCS.


Is anyone else saying to themselves, "HUH ? ? ? ? ?"

In article <[email protected]>,=20
DSL [email protected] says...
> Even Sprint admits its latency is unacceptable, and says its RL is not su=
itable
> for emergency services.
>=20
> Sprint apologists are grasping at straws to find something good about
> SprintPCS.
>=20

Straws? What about totally fabricating what's being said,=20
Sunshine? Where does Sprint PCS say the latency is=20
unacceptable?

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

If SprintPCS says: "It will take several seconds to establish the initial PCS
Ready Link connection", I would tend not to accept anyone saying its 1 second.


========================*
Here is what your own SprintPCS said about how good RL is:



" PCS Ready Link may not be appropriate for use by providers of
emergency services. It will take several seconds to establish the
initial PCS Ready Link connection; users may experience slight delays
in subsequent "in session" communications. Only one person can speak
at a time when in session. PCS Ready Link calls are terminated when
you press "End" or after approximately 20 seconds of inactivity. While
in session, voice calls will go directly to voicemail. When making a
voice call or using PCS Vision, PCS Ready Link calls will not be
completed."

======================
If SprintPCS says: "It will take several seconds to establish the initial PCS
Ready Link connection", I would tend not to accept anyone saying its 1 second.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:16:45 GMT, Scott Stephenson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>

>> I await Rat Shack to get their Readylink phones going. I'd like to get
>> an FTP session going on the same tower to see what, if any, effect it
>> would have on the latency, while talking to someone via Readylink at a
>> different Rat Shack across town, on a different tower.
>
>Paul- what area of the country?

Kansas City (Overland Park, to be exact). Just south of I-435 in a
heavily urban area, lots of businesses, shopping malls. Cell traffic
should be high.

The real question what's that serving cell's capacity...

On 21 Nov 2003 02:22:56 GMT, [email protected] (DSL GURU) wrote:

>To another phone in same room?
>
>Even Sprint admits its latency is unacceptable, and says its RL is not suitable
>for emergency services.

May not be acceptable, especially since capacity is not dedicated to
the emergency service. Haven't you ascertained that an emergency
service and all its users, should take absolute control of any
communications infrastructure whenever they need it? Imagine the
complaints to SPCS when other users are shut out, all of a sudden, by
an emergency event in a location requiring emergency service!

>Sprint apologists are grasping at straws to find something good about
>SprintPCS.

That makes you a Sprint apologist, since you keep find it good enough
to keep using their service. So, DSL GURU, by his own admission is a
Sprint apologist.

nice try

You know if you read you own post, the INITIAL connection may take a few
seconds, That when the person if first trying to get to the other person.
once the main connection has been established, the latency is around 1 -2
seconds if even that. And no were in your "quote" of Sprint PCS did they say
"It's not ready yet"

"DSL GURU" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> nice try

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:16:45 GMT, Scott Stephenson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>
>>> I await Rat Shack to get their Readylink phones going. I'd like to get
>>> an FTP session going on the same tower to see what, if any, effect it
>>> would have on the latency, while talking to someone via Readylink at a
>>> different Rat Shack across town, on a different tower.
>>
>>Paul- what area of the country?
>
>Kansas City (Overland Park, to be exact). Just south of I-435 in a
>heavily urban area, lots of businesses, shopping malls. Cell traffic
>should be high.
>
>The real question what's that serving cell's capacity...

Try it in Kansas City near the intersection of 435 & 35....



--
Ebeth Jones
"I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing that does
not either vex or weary me." -- Catherine Morland, on history

Sprint said its not suitable for emergency services. Enough said.

Alias for Smith wrote:

> If SprintPCS says: "It will take several seconds to establish the initial
> PCS Ready Link connection", I would tend not to accept anyone saying its 1
> second.

Then prove him wrong- he says its a second, and the reality of the situation
is that it could be true. Sprint did a great job of setting a realistic
expectation when they said it had latency problems- that doesn't mean it
can't work better than expected.

Prove him wrong? SprintPCS already posted that its wrong.

On 21 Nov 2003 13:12:57 GMT, [email protected] (Alias for Smith)
wrote:

>If SprintPCS says: "It will take several seconds to establish the initial PCS
>Ready Link connection", I would tend not to accept anyone saying its 1 second.
>
>
I don't know if it is 1 second or not. Quite frankly, I don't care
either but...

Wow, Phille (DSL GURU, Weekend Sunshine, etc..) agrees with a Sprint
press release and not some Joe Blow user actually using the service.
Funny how 99.99999% of the time it is without question, the exact
opposite. If anyone EVER had a question about Phille's true
intentions or integity for making an educated decision on an issue, I
think this sums it up.

Disclaimer:
I hate to reply to him but this was way too tempting. Time to go back
into ignore mode.