Phone as modem - slow!!!

Succeded in using Samsumg VGA1000 w.data cable and SnapDialer to
access internet. Both Vision (#777) and dialing direct to ISP are
excruciating slow, slow, slow. Perpaps 1 minute to refresh each
screen. Is that to be expected? If not, any ideas on how to increase
speed. While advertise 230K, not nearly as fast as a 56K modem.

By the way, is direct connection preferred so that Sprint does not
revoke Vision?

Only intend occational use since have cable and dial-up.

Thanks in advance.

---

› See More: Phone as modem - slow!!!

It could be that the tower you're using is overloaded. The last time I
used Vision #777 through my Samsung VGA1000 tethered to my laptop,
I got 110 kbps on downloads and speed tests. Web pages loaded
fairly quick, definitely faster than a 56k dialup modem.

--=20

John Richards


"Herve L. Guerette" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
> Succeded in using Samsumg VGA1000 w.data cable and SnapDialer to
> access internet. Both Vision (#777) and dialing direct to ISP are
> excruciating slow, slow, slow. Perpaps 1 minute to refresh each
> screen. Is that to be expected? If not, any ideas on how to increase
> speed. While advertise 230K, not nearly as fast as a 56K modem.
>=20
> By the way, is direct connection preferred so that Sprint does not
> revoke Vision?
>=20
> Only intend occational use since have cable and dial-up.
>=20
> Thanks in advance.

Nah, that's not normal...change locations. I've gotten very good results
using my phone, much better than dial-up...results vary depending on signal
strength, etc.


"Herve L. Guerette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Succeded in using Samsumg VGA1000 w.data cable and SnapDialer to
> access internet. Both Vision (#777) and dialing direct to ISP are
> excruciating slow, slow, slow. Perpaps 1 minute to refresh each
> screen. Is that to be expected? If not, any ideas on how to increase
> speed. While advertise 230K, not nearly as fast as a 56K modem.
>
> By the way, is direct connection preferred so that Sprint does not
> revoke Vision?
>
> Only intend occational use since have cable and dial-up.
>
> Thanks in advance.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 01:35:32 GMT, "John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Nah, that's not normal...change locations. I've gotten very good results
>using my phone, much better than dial-up...results vary depending on signal
>strength, etc.
>
>
>"Herve L. Guerette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Succeded in using Samsumg VGA1000 w.data cable and SnapDialer to
>> access internet. Both Vision (#777) and dialing direct to ISP are
>> excruciating slow, slow, slow. Perpaps 1 minute to refresh each
>> screen. Is that to be expected? If not, any ideas on how to increase
>> speed. While advertise 230K, not nearly as fast as a 56K modem.
>>
>> By the way, is direct connection preferred so that Sprint does not
>> revoke Vision?
>>
>> Only intend occational use since have cable and dial-up.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>

Actually have decent coverage - at least two bars. So, looks like I
have an issue - perhaps conflict with port or some other software. I
do have Access4Free which could be the problem.

Thanks for input.

"Herve L. Guerette" wrote:
>
> Actually have decent coverage - at least two bars. So, looks like I
> have an issue - perhaps conflict with port or some other software. I
> do have Access4Free which could be the problem.

To those who've seen the following, and are tired of it, my apologies.

Clearly, Herve hasn't...

One should never look at the number of "bars" as any indication of
signal strength. They're put there by the manufacturer of the phone.
One manufacturer might decide that a weak signal deserves one bar,
while the next thinks two would be more appropriate. Etc., etc. Not
only is there no standard between manufacturers, there's not even a
standard between phones from the *same* manufacturer.

Larry

Thanks so very much Larry - that was extremely helpful. I did not
expect bars met some industry standard. But, I did figure out over the
years that more was better - 0 and you best not make the call, 1 is
marginal and may fade out, 2-3 is better. From my home, I'm running
'better'.

Thanks again.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 01:50:35 GMT, Lawrence Glasser
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Herve L. Guerette" wrote:
>>
>> Actually have decent coverage - at least two bars. So, looks like I
>> have an issue - perhaps conflict with port or some other software. I
>> do have Access4Free which could be the problem.
>
>To those who've seen the following, and are tired of it, my apologies.
>
>Clearly, Herve hasn't...
>
>One should never look at the number of "bars" as any indication of
>signal strength. They're put there by the manufacturer of the phone.
>One manufacturer might decide that a weak signal deserves one bar,
>while the next thinks two would be more appropriate. Etc., etc. Not
>only is there no standard between manufacturers, there's not even a
>standard between phones from the *same* manufacturer.
>
>Larry

Glad to help!

While, in a relative sense, you're correct, lots of posters have
reported that they are able to make calls with "no bars" and have
lost connections with "5 bars."

Larry

"Herve L. Guerette" wrote:
>
> Thanks so very much Larry - that was extremely helpful. I did not
> expect bars met some industry standard. But, I did figure out over the
> years that more was better - 0 and you best not make the call, 1 is
> marginal and may fade out, 2-3 is better. From my home, I'm running
> 'better'.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 01:50:35 GMT, Lawrence Glasser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >To those who've seen the following, and are tired of it, my apologies.
> >
> >Clearly, Herve hasn't...
> >
> >One should never look at the number of "bars" as any indication of
> >signal strength. They're put there by the manufacturer of the phone.
> >One manufacturer might decide that a weak signal deserves one bar,
> >while the next thinks two would be more appropriate. Etc., etc. Not
> >only is there no standard between manufacturers, there's not even a
> >standard between phones from the *same* manufacturer.
> >
> >Larry

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> Succeded in using Samsumg VGA1000 w.data cable and SnapDialer to
> access internet. Both Vision (#777) and dialing direct to ISP are
> excruciating slow, slow, slow. Perpaps 1 minute to refresh each
> screen. Is that to be expected? If not, any ideas on how to increase
> speed. While advertise 230K, not nearly as fast as a 56K modem.
>=20
> By the way, is direct connection preferred so that Sprint does not
> revoke Vision?
>=20
> Only intend occational use since have cable and dial-up.
>=20
> Thanks in advance.
>=20

If you direct-dial into another provider, you're capped at 14.4kbps,=20
and you're paying $0.39/min while doing it. That is *not* Vision.

--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> Succeded in using Samsumg VGA1000 w.data cable and SnapDialer to
> access internet. Both Vision (#777) and dialing direct to ISP are
> excruciating slow, slow, slow. Perpaps 1 minute to refresh each
> screen. Is that to be expected? If not, any ideas on how to increase
> speed. While advertise 230K, not nearly as fast as a 56K modem.
>=20
> By the way, is direct connection preferred so that Sprint does not
> revoke Vision?
>=20
> Only intend occational use since have cable and dial-up.
>=20
> Thanks in advance.
>=20

If you direct-dial into another provider, you're capped at 14.4kbps,=20
and you're paying $0.39/min while doing it. That is *not* Vision.

--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them