reply to discussion
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 44 of 44
  1. #31
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T

    At 11 Dec 2008 19:47:56 +0000 Larry wrote:

    > The 3G works on the PCS transmitter, which is either 120 or 150mw. The
    > wifi operates on 20mw, at the most 10% of the sellphone's transmitter load.


    >
    > Wifi hardly uses any power at all with its powerful 20mw transmitter.....



    Tell that to my Tilt- leaving WiFi on constantly drains the battery flat in
    about three hours! ;-)

    The iPhone is truly amazing in that regard. Shutting WiFi off only extends
    my wife's battery life a couple of hours. Of course those few hours are
    the difference between making it through the entire day or dying in the
    evening.








    See More: iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T




  2. #32
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T

    Dennis Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > On 2008-12-11, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> nospam <[email protected]> wrote in news:101220082046067977%
    >> [email protected]lid:
    >>
    >>> the question is which one uses more power. so far, you and sms said
    >>> that wifi uses more than 3g. from what i've seen, i don't think
    >>> that's the case. i'd like to see actual tests that show how much
    >>> power each feature uses.
    >>>

    >>
    >> The 3G works on the PCS transmitter, which is either 120 or 150mw.
    >> The wifi operates on 20mw, at the most 10% of the sellphone's
    >> transmitter load.
    >>
    >> Wifi hardly uses any power at all with its powerful 20mw
    >> transmitter.....

    >
    > That's sort of correct as far as it goes, I'd only note that the
    > 3G transmitter is power-controlled so it is likely to be closer
    > to the WiFi output power than you suggest at least some of the time.
    > I'd agree, however, that 3G is likely more expensive per bit
    > transmitted than WiFi, but would also point out that most people
    > receive a lot more bits than they transmit and the power consumed by
    > the receivers per bit is likely to be closer still.


    This IS ATTWS we're talking about, right?....the guys with the poor
    signals, which would cause the power controls to run wide open straining
    to get the too-distant towers to hear them??

    I have a wifi monitor app on the Maemo Linux tablets:
    http://maemo.org/downloads/product/OS2008/wifiinfo/
    that needs a really new set of pictures to show its current reality.
    The fuzzy one on the webpage is really old and it does a lot of things
    new. Anyways, one of the new things it shows is your current polled
    signal and what the wifi speed settings are so you can tune your tablet
    position for best speed when wifi signals are less than stellar.

    Because I can get the connection speed of wifi so high, in comparison to
    3G, the amount of power per bit is tiny by comparison...even if the wifi
    power were not so much LESS than what the 3G transceiver was using.
    Wifi must win hands down. Bluetooth beats wifi by another factor
    because it only has comms for 30 feet...with lots less power, again.


    >
    > I'd also note that actually moving data isn't the only way
    > those transceivers consume power, and for the average user (that
    > might exclude those doing 27 GB/month) what the transceiver consumes
    > when it isn't transfering data probably ends up being more important
    > than what it does when it is actually being used. There are two
    > idle states that may matter. First, both 3G and WiFi consume a lot
    > of power when scanning for service (3G seems particularly bad, my
    > Motorola 3G phone will go 2 or 3 days between charges if it has
    > service but will run the battery down in an hour when it is looking
    > for service) but, assuming decent 3G coverage, most phones on the
    > move probably spend a lot more time scanning for WiFi service than
    > for cell phone service. Once the phone finds service, however, the
    > cell phone protocols, both 2G and 3G, are really very efficient at
    > maintaining their connection to the network in terms of power while
    > WiFi requires very frequent transmissions to keep the connection up
    > (this is why the T-Mobile-at-home access points violate the WiFi
    > protocol, to lessen the phone's power consumption when connected
    > via WiFi). On balance I suspect that in a phone with both the
    > 3G and WiFi transceivers operating, the WiFi would typically consume
    > more power while idle than the 3G, and that for most users idle
    > power consumption by the radios is most of their power consumption.
    > I hence think that if you have both the 3G and the WiFi radios on
    > the WiFi radio will consume more of the battery.


    To look at what the per byte charge the sellphone companies think it's
    worth, 25c/MB overage of 5GB on Verizon for example, you'd think they
    were hand delivering it in a Rolls Royce. This, alone, would make me
    reconsider looking at cnn.com's Flash-loaded, Javascripted, Spam moving
    GIF-drowning webpages. I would only connect to the damned old WAP
    websites, even with Firefox 3 at that rate! Of course, these punative
    limitations have that exact desired effect, keeping the users OFF the
    infrastructure so we can sell the SAME bandwidth to a few thousand
    accounts without having to actually provide bandwidth to any of them.


    >
    > The fact is, however, that 3G and WiFi aren't equal alternatives.
    > Most people won't ever turn the cell phone transceiver off since
    > their voice service depends on it, so really only the WiFi
    > radio is optional and what we're comparing is 3G+WiFi to 3G
    > alone. Here the comparison is clear. You'll use less power
    > if you turn the WiFi off when you aren't using it than if you
    > leave it running.
    >
    > Dennis Ferguson
    >


    They are not equals, tonight. However, see that bright light shining
    over the horizon just beyond that hill? That light IS going to equalize
    it all....WIMAX. WIMAX will be wifi with RANGE and HANDOFF...EVEN
    BETWEEN THEM!

    http://www.youtube.com/results?
    search_query=Wimax+Wifi+handoff&search_type=&aq=f

    THIS I find really cool stuff!




  3. #33
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T

    Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > At 11 Dec 2008 19:50:34 +0000 Larry wrote:
    >
    >> or they pick a limit that is high enough that it only affects the
    >> true bandwidth hogs.
    >>
    >>
    >> Hey, WATCH IT! I only used 27GB last month on Alltel!

    >
    > T-Mobile just starting tracking data usage ulling six email accounts,
    > a dozen or so text Usenet groups, some web browsing, and quite a bit
    > of Windows Live Search (a server-based navigation program) on my WinMo
    > phone, I came in at just under 200MB for an entire month.
    >
    >
    >
    >


    Hmm....do the math. Let's say you are on the $39.95 data plan...divided
    by 0.2GB/month = $199.75/GB! Are you sure this is worth the price?
    Couldn't the emails wait until you got near a wifi hotspot? Obviously
    you're not using on-the-go roaming data much. $39.95 x 12 =
    $479.40/year for 200MB/mo doesn't sound very wise to me at all!




  4. #34
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T

    Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > Tell that to my Tilt- leaving WiFi on constantly drains the battery
    > flat in about three hours! ;-)
    >
    >


    No, that's because your Tilt ISN'T connected to a hotspot, so is CONSTANTLY
    on the air looking for one.

    Take the Tilt out into an area where it cannot connect to a sellphone
    system and see how long the battery lasts while it's trying to logon.




  5. #35
    4phun
    Guest

    Re: iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T

    On Dec 11, 8:16*pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
    > 4phun <[email protected]> wrote innews:63eae291-2e4f-4a48-86ce-813ef0f8145b@v13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
    >
    > > On Dec 11, 2:50*pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote
    > >> innews:0950l.7550$uS1.5713@

    > > newsfe19.iad:

    >
    > >> >> > > or they pick a limit that is high enough that it only affects
    > >> >> > > the true bandwidth hogs.

    >
    > >> Hey, WATCH IT! *I only used 27GB last month on Alltel!

    >
    > > And next month in 2009 as part of Verizon?

    >
    > I'm assured over and over that my current contract and features will not
    > change. *Do you think Verizon would lie to us?


    Do you?



  6. #36
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T

    4phun <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > On Dec 11, 8:16*pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> 4phun <[email protected]> wrote
    >> innews:63eae291-2e4f-4a48-86ce-813ef0f

    > [email protected]:
    >>
    >> > On Dec 11, 2:50*pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >> Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote
    >> >> innews:0950l.7550$uS1.5713@
    >> > newsfe19.iad:

    >>
    >> >> >> > > or they pick a limit that is high enough that it only
    >> >> >> > > affects the true bandwidth hogs.

    >>
    >> >> Hey, WATCH IT! *I only used 27GB last month on Alltel!

    >>
    >> > And next month in 2009 as part of Verizon?

    >>
    >> I'm assured over and over that my current contract and features will
    >> not change. *Do you think Verizon would lie to us?

    >
    > Do you?
    >


    Verizon lied to me many times since GTE bought out Cellular One. That's
    why I left for Alltel.....

    Ask the same question to 8 Verizon employees....get 8 answers. I've
    gotten that runaround lately trying to find out if Unlimited data access
    for Alltel customers would continue as before. Not a single VZW
    bureaucrat has said no....but that means nothing.

    Many Alltel customers will churn the first month....




  7. #37
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T

    At 12 Dec 2008 01:22:05 +0000 Larry wrote:

    > >> Hey, WATCH IT! I only used 27GB last month on Alltel!

    > >
    > > T-Mobile just starting tracking data usage ulling six email accounts,
    > > a dozen or so text Usenet groups, some web browsing, and quite a bit
    > > of Windows Live Search (a server-based navigation program) on my WinMo
    > > phone, I came in at just under 200MB for an entire month.

    >
    > Hmm....do the math. Let's say you are on the $39.95 data plan...divided
    > by 0.2GB/month = $199.75/GB! Are you sure this is worth the price?
    > Couldn't the emails wait until you got near a wifi hotspot? Obviously
    > you're not using on-the-go roaming data much. $39.95 x 12 =
    > $479.40/year for 200MB/mo doesn't sound very wise to me at all!


    Agreed. I'm on a $5.99/month grandfathered unlimited plan, however, so
    it's costing me $30/GB by your math. I still think 200MB sounds low,
    though- I'll check a few more bills as they come in.

    Of course I'm not paying per GB, I'm paying for "data on demand"- email and
    web access when and when I want it. The quantity isn't important. At
    $0.20/day, T-Mobile will have to pry my phone out of my cold dead hands to
    get me off that plan.

    Their new data plans are interesting, (though more expensive than mine, so
    I have no desire to switch.)

    Unlimited (smartphone) data is now $25/month (up from $20, but now includes
    400 SMS).

    The cheaper (dumbphone) plan is no longer unlimited, but is now 50MB (plus
    200 SMS) for $10/month, with a $0.20/MB overage fee. While the overage fee
    is high, it's capped at a $15 maximum, so worst-case scenario, you'd pay
    the same $25 as the unlimited plan, and get the same unlimited service,
    (but 200 texts instead of 400.) You'd save money, though, in any month you
    used less than 125MB of data.

    Of course, like most carriers, T-Mo's definition of "unlimited" requires an
    asterisk: you get 10GB at whatever speed your equipment and the network can
    handle, then they throttle you down to 50kbps for the rest of the billing
    cycle. So you'd be good for the first nine days of the month, anyway...
    ;-)





  8. #38
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T

    At 12 Dec 2008 03:48:26 +0000 Larry wrote:

    > Verizon lied to me many times since GTE bought out Cellular One. That's
    > why I left for Alltel.....
    >
    > Ask the same question to 8 Verizon employees....get 8 answers. I've
    > gotten that runaround lately trying to find out if Unlimited data access
    > for Alltel customers would continue as before. Not a single VZW
    > bureaucrat has said no....but that means nothing.
    >
    > Many Alltel customers will churn the first month....


    To who? You've said many times Alltel's coverage in your neck of the woods
    is unequalled.

    The Alltel customers will simply grit their teeth and get out their
    checkbooks, cursing the fact that decent coverage drove them to this...

    ....just like the other 70 million Verizon customers already do! ;-)






  9. #39
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T

    At 12 Dec 2008 01:25:12 +0000 Larry wrote:

    > > Tell that to my Tilt- leaving WiFi on constantly drains the battery
    > > flat in about three hours! ;-)

    >
    > No, that's because your Tilt ISN'T connected to a hotspot, so is

    CONSTANTLY
    > on the air looking for one.


    Correct, but that's the typical useage pattern for WiFi. If I'm staying in
    one place, I'll be near a PC.

    > Take the Tilt out into an area where it cannot connect to a sellphone
    > system...


    I'm a T-Mobile customer. That can happen often! ;-)

    > ...and see how long the battery lasts while it's trying to logon.


    Longer than WiFi, but with no GSM signal the battery won't make it through
    the day.






  10. #40
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T

    Larry wrote:
    > 4phun <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    >> On Dec 11, 8:16 pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> 4phun <[email protected]> wrote
    >>> innews:63eae291-2e4f-4a48-86ce-813ef0f

    >> [email protected]:
    >>>> On Dec 11, 2:50 pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>> Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>> innews:0950l.7550$uS1.5713@
    >>>> newsfe19.iad:
    >>>>>>>>> or they pick a limit that is high enough that it only
    >>>>>>>>> affects the true bandwidth hogs.
    >>>>> Hey, WATCH IT! I only used 27GB last month on Alltel!
    >>>> And next month in 2009 as part of Verizon?
    >>> I'm assured over and over that my current contract and features will
    >>> not change. Do you think Verizon would lie to us?

    >> Do you?
    >>

    >
    > Verizon lied to me many times since GTE bought out Cellular One. That's
    > why I left for Alltel.....
    >
    > Ask the same question to 8 Verizon employees....get 8 answers. I've
    > gotten that runaround lately trying to find out if Unlimited data access
    > for Alltel customers would continue as before. Not a single VZW
    > bureaucrat has said no....but that means nothing.
    >
    > Many Alltel customers will churn the first month....


    Highly unlikely. Where would they go? The competitive landscape has
    changed from when consumers didn't understand the huge differences in
    coverage between carriers, thanks to publications like Consumer Reports
    doing extensive surveys.

    And few care about the history of Verizon/GTE/Cellular One (and in my
    area it was AT&T that bought out Cellular One).



  11. #41
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T

    Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in news:ltn0l.3660$%z5.1193
    @newsfe09.iad:

    > So you'd be good for the first nine days of the month, anyway...
    > ;-)
    >


    (Shudder)......yecch.




  12. #42
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T

    Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:stn0l.3662$%[email protected]:

    > At 12 Dec 2008 03:48:26 +0000 Larry wrote:
    >
    >> Verizon lied to me many times since GTE bought out Cellular One.
    >> That's why I left for Alltel.....
    >>
    >> Ask the same question to 8 Verizon employees....get 8 answers. I've
    >> gotten that runaround lately trying to find out if Unlimited data
    >> access for Alltel customers would continue as before. Not a single
    >> VZW bureaucrat has said no....but that means nothing.
    >>
    >> Many Alltel customers will churn the first month....

    >
    > To who? You've said many times Alltel's coverage in your neck of the
    > woods is unequalled.
    >
    > The Alltel customers will simply grit their teeth and get out their
    > checkbooks, cursing the fact that decent coverage drove them to
    > this...
    >
    > ...just like the other 70 million Verizon customers already do! ;-)
    >
    >
    >
    >


    Lots I know are all looking to Cricket. They rarely need rural service,
    rarely leave the city and don't need it for business....being retired.
    Noone beats Cricket, here, and the service works very well or my buddy's
    16-year-old addict would be *****ing at me as I recommended to daddy to
    buy it for her....(c;

    $35/mo, unlimited minutes, unlimited LD US/Canada/AK/HI, unlimited
    voicemail....no text.




  13. #43
    Dennis Ferguson
    Guest

    Re: iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T

    On 2008-12-12, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    > And few care about the history of Verizon/GTE/Cellular One (and in my
    > area it was AT&T that bought out Cellular One).


    AT&T did buy Cellular One's assets, but they bought them from
    Verizon (or Vodafone at least).

    Dennis Ferguson



  14. #44
    Dennis Ferguson
    Guest

    Re: iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T

    On 2008-12-12, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Because I can get the connection speed of wifi so high, in comparison to
    > 3G, the amount of power per bit is tiny by comparison...even if the wifi
    > power were not so much LESS than what the 3G transceiver was using.
    > Wifi must win hands down. Bluetooth beats wifi by another factor
    > because it only has comms for 30 feet...with lots less power, again.


    This is true, if you are very close to the access point/base station
    then you don't need much transmitter power. The utility of this
    is limited, however, by the fact that for the average data user it
    is the access point/base station which is transmitting most of the bits,
    with the handsets doing most of the receiving. The access point/base
    station doesn't worry about power since it gets it from the power
    grid.

    Don't underestimate the power cost of the receiver. 3G/GSM phones
    and WiFi transceivers don't transmit much of anything when they
    are searching for service (only connection attempts when they actually
    hear something) but they all suck down the battery when they're doing
    this. Higher speed modulation generally increases the processing
    cost for the receiver, there's no free lunch.

    Dennis Ferguson



  • Similar Threads







  • Quick Reply Quick Reply

    If you are already a member, please login above.