FAQ: Why is my GPRS, EDGE, or UMTS so slow?

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

In <MTGPe.1882$Bc2.1582@trnddc06> on Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:51:08 GMT, J
Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:

>My experience is that the data transfer on the EDGE PC card (Sony
>Ericsson) is now less that it was. Before on a good day I could get
>80kbits/sec download rate but now often only 5 to 10. Also it downloads
>some then just stops. Sort of like they have a limit on the number of
>bytes you can download in one session. I have not been able to get an
>answer from Cingular about this.

My own experience in the SF Bay Area is that speeds in general are just as
good as ever, notwithstanding occasional network problems.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: FAQ: Why is my GPRS, EDGE, or UMTS so slow?

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 08:55:19 -0500,
"Thurman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>My old CDMA card on Sprint runs at a hardware 144Kbs but because of
>compression the sustained rate while not moving is usually between 300 and
>408Kbs. At 80mph, transfer rates drop to a little over 200Kbs.

No offense, but that doesn't add up -- compression is much less effective than
that on real world data.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1JSQe.11065$p%[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>>My old CDMA card on Sprint runs at a hardware 144Kbs but because of
>>compression the sustained rate while not moving is usually between 300 and
>>408Kbs. At 80mph, transfer rates drop to a little over 200Kbs.
>
> No offense, but that doesn't add up -- compression is much less effective
> than
> that on real world data.

I appreciate your courtesy.

On Aug 12, 2004 at the HP Roadshow in Dallas, both the Sprint Vision tech
support guy from Houston and the marketing manager for Microsoft MapPoint
were dubious until I demonstrated it on a Hitachi G1000.

If you really want to see the numbers zoom, rerun the test without clearing
cash and you can show cable modem speeds.

For reasons I don't understand, the CEO of Qualcomm said the compression for
graphics is more effective than text.

If it will not offend anyone I have a 19KB screen shot that shows the
download.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:09:07 -0500,
"Thurman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:1JSQe.11065$p%[email protected]...
>>
>>>My old CDMA card on Sprint runs at a hardware 144Kbs but because of
>>>compression the sustained rate while not moving is usually between 300 and
>>>408Kbs. At 80mph, transfer rates drop to a little over 200Kbs.
>>
>> No offense, but that doesn't add up -- compression is much less effective
>> than that on real world data.
>
>I appreciate your courtesy.
>
>On Aug 12, 2004 at the HP Roadshow in Dallas, both the Sprint Vision tech
>support guy from Houston and the marketing manager for Microsoft MapPoint
>were dubious until I demonstrated it on a Hitachi G1000.
>
>If you really want to see the numbers zoom, rerun the test without clearing
>cash and you can show cable modem speeds.
>
>For reasons I don't understand, the CEO of Qualcomm said the compression for
>graphics is more effective than text.

Compression on a communications link is commonly taken to mean *lossless*
compression; e.g., LAP-M as used in dial-up modems. In this case the higher
throughput is real, since original data is being faithfully received. This
kind of compression on real-world text data is on the order of 2x; e.g., 100
Kbps throughput on a 50 Kbps link. However, typical graphic image data cannot
be further compressed to any appreciable extent by this kind of *lossless*
compression, so throughput of image data is about the same as the data link
speed. Thus the compression advantage on typical webpages with mixed text and
graphics is much less than 2x.

So-called "accelerator" software increases *apparent* throughput on graphic
images by applying *lossy* compression, which substantially degrades image
quality. Thus graphics load (much) faster, but with reduced quality.
Although such software is hyped as being (say) 5x faster, in reality it's not
any faster at actual throughput -- it just transfers *less data* with a
concomitant sacrifice of quality. Even faster page loading can of course be
achieved by simply turning off graphics altogether.

Thus I suspect you are seeing the claimed results of "accelerator" software,
not real throughput. To verify real throughput, time the download of a
compressed (e.g., ZIP) test file.

Cingular has an option for lossy compression of graphic images on Data
Connect, but not on MEdia Net.

>If it will not offend anyone I have a 19KB screen shot that shows the
>download.

That would not be appropriate here. Instead, put it on a website, and post
just the URL here.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Thurman wrote:
> "J Robertson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:MTGPe.1882$Bc2.1582@trnddc06...
>
>>My experience is that the data transfer on the EDGE PC card (Sony
>>Ericsson) is now less that it was. Before on a good day I could get
>>80kbits/sec download rate but now often only 5 to 10. Also it downloads
>>some then just stops. Sort of like they have a limit on the number of
>>bytes you can download in one session. I have not been able to get an
>>answer from Cingular about this.
>
>
> My old CDMA card on Sprint runs at a hardware 144Kbs but because of
> compression the sustained rate while not moving is usually between 300 and
> 408Kbs. At 80mph, transfer rates drop to a little over 200Kbs.
>
> I tested the new Verizon cards in a notebook and non-moving. They get burst
> rates up to 4Mbs but their data coverage is only slightly better than a
> barbed wire fence.
>
> Is your 5 to 10 Kbs raw data speeds or compressed data?
>
>
Uncompressed. It has somewhat improved the last week. But still not
much above 30 kb/s average. Peaks of 130 for a few msec. The only
thing Cingular has going with this EDGE is that it is all over. All the
AT&T towers had it and I think they added it to the 800 mhz band on the
Cingular towers. At least I heard they were going to.

Cingular now is really tight lipped about what is happening to their
data network. They were going to offer UMTS here about now but, that
plan seams to have been abandoned. In January they were quoted in an
magazine as saying they would have HSDPA in 20 markets by end of this
year and that they would skip the UMTS altogether. The guys in their
stores don't have a clue.

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

In <klORe.17770$um2.10684@trnddc03> on Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:58:40 GMT, J
Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:

>Thurman wrote:
>> "J Robertson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:MTGPe.1882$Bc2.1582@trnddc06...
>>
>>>My experience is that the data transfer on the EDGE PC card (Sony
>>>Ericsson) is now less that it was. Before on a good day I could get
>>>80kbits/sec download rate but now often only 5 to 10. Also it downloads
>>>some then just stops. Sort of like they have a limit on the number of
>>>bytes you can download in one session. I have not been able to get an
>>>answer from Cingular about this.
>>
>> [SNIP]
>> Is your 5 to 10 Kbs raw data speeds or compressed data?
>>
>Uncompressed. It has somewhat improved the last week. But still not
>much above 30 kb/s average. Peaks of 130 for a few msec. ...


Cingular EGPRS(EDGE) performance continues to be good here in the San
Francisco Bay Area. See screen captures of network throughput for FTP at
<http://j.navas.home.att.net/cingular_media_net/speed_9-1-2005.htm>
Note that speeds are relatively steady at near full speed for the two
different devices I tested (Motorola V551 and Sony Ericsson GC82),
97 Kbps (EGPRS Class 4) and 133 Kbps (EGPRS Class 10) respectively.
While I have seen some data network problems from time to time, this is
typical of my experiences with Cingular since EGPRS was rolled out here.


>Cingular now is really tight lipped about what is happening to their
>data network. They were going to offer UMTS here about now but, that
>plan seams to have been abandoned. In January they were quoted in an
>magazine as saying they would have HSDPA in 20 markets by end of this
>year and that they would skip the UMTS altogether. The guys in their
>stores don't have a clue.


Indeed they don't, which isn't terribly surprising, and I'd personally call
this a sensible and common business practice rather than "really tight lipped"
given the complexities of blue and orange network integration, which is
probably a higher priority (given its importance to all subscribers) than new
higher-speed data service (with EGPRS/EDGE is already in place, and limited
demand for higher-speed data). I think it makes sense to not make promises or
even forecasts that might be difficult to keep.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <klORe.17770$um2.10684@trnddc03> on Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:58:40 GMT, J
> Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Thurman wrote:
>>
>>>"J Robertson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:MTGPe.1882$Bc2.1582@trnddc06...
>>>
>>>
>>>>My experience is that the data transfer on the EDGE PC card (Sony
>>>>Ericsson) is now less that it was. Before on a good day I could get
>>>>80kbits/sec download rate but now often only 5 to 10. Also it downloads
>>>>some then just stops. Sort of like they have a limit on the number of
>>>>bytes you can download in one session. I have not been able to get an
>>>>answer from Cingular about this.
>>>
>>>[SNIP]
>>>Is your 5 to 10 Kbs raw data speeds or compressed data?
>>>
>>
>>Uncompressed. It has somewhat improved the last week. But still not
>>much above 30 kb/s average. Peaks of 130 for a few msec. ...
>
>
>
> Cingular EGPRS(EDGE) performance continues to be good here in the San
> Francisco Bay Area. See screen captures of network throughput for FTP at
> <http://j.navas.home.att.net/cingular_media_net/speed_9-1-2005.htm>
> Note that speeds are relatively steady at near full speed for the two
> different devices I tested (Motorola V551 and Sony Ericsson GC82),
> 97 Kbps (EGPRS Class 4) and 133 Kbps (EGPRS Class 10) respectively.
> While I have seen some data network problems from time to time, this is
> typical of my experiences with Cingular since EGPRS was rolled out here.
>
>
>
>>Cingular now is really tight lipped about what is happening to their
>>data network. They were going to offer UMTS here about now but, that
>>plan seams to have been abandoned. In January they were quoted in an
>>magazine as saying they would have HSDPA in 20 markets by end of this
>>year and that they would skip the UMTS altogether. The guys in their
>>stores don't have a clue.
>
>
>
> Indeed they don't, which isn't terribly surprising, and I'd personally call
> this a sensible and common business practice rather than "really tight lipped"
> given the complexities of blue and orange network integration, which is
> probably a higher priority (given its importance to all subscribers) than new
> higher-speed data service (with EGPRS/EDGE is already in place, and limited
> demand for higher-speed data). I think it makes sense to not make promises or
> even forecasts that might be difficult to keep.
>
On the speed in San Francisco. That is one of the places where they
already have UMTS if memory serves. Performance reported there is
something I have never seen with the GC83 card. Cingular replaced it
and it has current firmware. No difference. I also have three different
Thinkpad models that I have tried it in. Same performance. Most of my
experience is in the NY and DC areas however I did use it in LA and
Seattle. Things not much different there.

On the business front. Cingular is losing the data business to Verizon
and now T-Mobile that they are working on HSDPA. Maybe they are going to
forfeit that market.

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

In <e_6Se.1001$AB4.971@trnddc03> on Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:27:38 GMT, J Robertson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

>> Cingular EGPRS(EDGE) performance continues to be good here in the San
>> Francisco Bay Area. See screen captures of network throughput for FTP at
>> <http://j.navas.home.att.net/cingular_media_net/speed_9-1-2005.htm>
>> Note that speeds are relatively steady at near full speed for the two
>> different devices I tested (Motorola V551 and Sony Ericsson GC82),
>> 97 Kbps (EGPRS Class 4) and 133 Kbps (EGPRS Class 10) respectively.
>> While I have seen some data network problems from time to time, this is
>> typical of my experiences with Cingular since EGPRS was rolled out here.

>On the speed in San Francisco. That is one of the places where they
>already have UMTS if memory serves.

Correct, inherited from ATTWS.

>Performance reported there is
>something I have never seen with the GC83 card. Cingular replaced it
>and it has current firmware. No difference. I also have three different
>Thinkpad models that I have tried it in. Same performance. Most of my
>experience is in the NY and DC areas however I did use it in LA and
>Seattle. Things not much different there.

Then I strongly suspect something wrong in your configuration. Have you tried
Sony Ericsson's Wireless Manager instead of Cingular software? Have you
monitored speed and packet loss?

>On the business front. Cingular is losing the data business to Verizon
>and now T-Mobile that they are working on HSDPA. Maybe they are going to
>forfeit that market.

Say what? T-Mobile is dead last, and Cingular has better data coverage
nationwide than Verizon.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <e_6Se.1001$AB4.971@trnddc03> on Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:27:38 GMT, J Robertson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>>>Cingular EGPRS(EDGE) performance continues to be good here in the San
>>>Francisco Bay Area. See screen captures of network throughput for FTP at
>>><http://j.navas.home.att.net/cingular_media_net/speed_9-1-2005.htm>
>>>Note that speeds are relatively steady at near full speed for the two
>>>different devices I tested (Motorola V551 and Sony Ericsson GC82),
>>>97 Kbps (EGPRS Class 4) and 133 Kbps (EGPRS Class 10) respectively.
>>>While I have seen some data network problems from time to time, this is
>>>typical of my experiences with Cingular since EGPRS was rolled out here.
>
>
>>On the speed in San Francisco. That is one of the places where they
>>already have UMTS if memory serves.
>
>
> Correct, inherited from ATTWS.
>
>
>>Performance reported there is
>>something I have never seen with the GC83 card. Cingular replaced it
>>and it has current firmware. No difference. I also have three different
>>Thinkpad models that I have tried it in. Same performance. Most of my
>>experience is in the NY and DC areas however I did use it in LA and
>>Seattle. Things not much different there.
>
>
> Then I strongly suspect something wrong in your configuration. Have you tried
> Sony Ericsson's Wireless Manager instead of Cingular software? Have you
> monitored speed and packet loss?
>
>
>>On the business front. Cingular is losing the data business to Verizon
>>and now T-Mobile that they are working on HSDPA. Maybe they are going to
>>forfeit that market.
>
>
> Say what? T-Mobile is dead last, and Cingular has better data coverage
> nationwide than Verizon.
>
I have tested the performance with numerous tools and the best one, from
NIST if I recall correctly, states that the link is limited upstream. I
think there are three, maybe four, reasons your experience is different
from what we see in the Mid Atlantic.
1. UMTS is there in SF and was done by AT&T so they must have adequate
bandwidth available to the cell sites to support that. That would also
make lots of bandwidth available for EDGE.
2. The Limitatation, per knowledgeable people before Cingular gagged
them, is that there is not enough bandwidth at the cell sites and they
have programmed the system to service voice before data. So while class
10 can deliver four downlink channels, in practice Cingular only gives
one. And sometimes zero. (That would explain while at the Grand Hyatt
in NYC, with 100% signal I could not establish a data connection for
three days.)
3. For business reasons, Cingular wants former AT&T people to switch
to Cingular (they collect the early termination fee, sell new equipment,
get a new contract and charge higher fees, and move them to the Cingular
billing system) so as an incentive, they may have been (many complaints
to the FCC and FTC I think forced them to back off on this)
intentionally reducing connectivity to former AT&T devices. I was told
by a Cingular and former AT&T data specialist that they had changed the
system so that former AT&T customers could only connect to former AT&T
towers and that they had actually reduced the number of them. Just two
days ago, a Cingular store rep, told me with a tone of contempt in his
voice, you should know that if you switch to Cingular you will have much
better data service than if you stay with AT&T. (Somehow, I thought
Cingular and AT&T Wireless were now the same company.) Complaints on
the forum show that the problems are identical regardless of which SIM
card or account one has.
4. I hear that as part of the UMTS (HSDPA??) roll out here, they have
interrupted the data service for testing. Also I have continually heard
that they are having network integration problems. As an engineer, it is
a little hard for me to think that would be so difficult as it appears
to be, at least if they know what they are doing.

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

In <l5hSe.8078$QN4.7818@trnddc02> on Sat, 03 Sep 2005 12:57:53 GMT, J
Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:

>I have tested the performance with numerous tools and the best one, from
>NIST if I recall correctly, states that the link is limited upstream.

What's that supposed to mean?

>I
>think there are three, maybe four, reasons your experience is different
>from what we see in the Mid Atlantic.
>1. UMTS is there in SF and was done by AT&T so they must have adequate
>bandwidth available to the cell sites to support that. That would also
>make lots of bandwidth available for EDGE.

I'm using the "orange" (old Cingular) network, not the "blue" (ATTWS) network,
so that wouldn't apply.

>2. The Limitatation, per knowledgeable people before Cingular gagged
>them, is that there is not enough bandwidth at the cell sites and they
>have programmed the system to service voice before data. So while class
>10 can deliver four downlink channels,

Timeslots.

>in practice Cingular only gives
>one. And sometimes zero. (That would explain while at the Grand Hyatt
>in NYC, with 100% signal I could not establish a data connection for
>three days.)

You wrote:

My experience is that the data transfer on the EDGE PC card (Sony
Ericsson) is now less that it was. Before on a good day I could get
80kbits/sec download rate but now often only 5 to 10. Also it downloads
some then just stops. Sort of like they have a limit on the number of
bytes you can download in one session. ...

Your timeslot limitation theory wouldn't explain that. With a timeslot limit,
you should still see a steady speed, just lower. 80 Kbps might indeed be two
timeslots, but even one timeslot would be 40 Kbps (not "only 5 to 10").

>3. For business reasons, Cingular wants former AT&T people to switch
>to Cingular

Yep.

>(they collect the early termination fee,

Nope.

>sell new equipment,

Needed for the "orange" network.

>get a new contract

Yep.

>and charge higher fees,

Not necessarily.

>and move them to the Cingular
>billing system) so as an incentive, they may have been (many complaints
>to the FCC and FTC I think forced them to back off on this)
>intentionally reducing connectivity to former AT&T devices.

I've seen no real evidence of that.

>I was told
>by a Cingular and former AT&T data specialist that they had changed the
>system so that former AT&T customers could only connect to former AT&T
>towers and that they had actually reduced the number of them.

Only for TDMA -- "blue" (old ATTWS) *GSM* customers have free roaming on
"orange" (Cingular).

>Just two
>days ago, a Cingular store rep, told me with a tone of contempt in his
>voice, you should know that if you switch to Cingular you will have much
>better data service than if you stay with AT&T.

What does it matter what one store rep might say?

>(Somehow, I thought
>Cingular and AT&T Wireless were now the same company.)

Same company, different networks.

>Complaints on
>the forum show that the problems are identical regardless of which SIM
>card or account one has.

I disagree.

>4. I hear that as part of the UMTS (HSDPA??) roll out here, they have
>interrupted the data service for testing. Also I have continually heard
>that they are having network integration problems.

Why do you put so much stock in rumors?

>As an engineer, it is
>a little hard for me to think that would be so difficult as it appears
>to be, at least if they know what they are doing.

It is in fact a hard job.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <l5hSe.8078$QN4.7818@trnddc02> on Sat, 03 Sep 2005 12:57:53 GMT, J
> Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I have tested the performance with numerous tools and the best one, from
>>NIST if I recall correctly, states that the link is limited upstream.
>
>
> What's that supposed to mean?

That means that the bandwidth available to data is less than advertised
and under control of the carrier no inherent in the technology.
>
>
>>I
>>think there are three, maybe four, reasons your experience is different
>
>>from what we see in the Mid Atlantic.
>
>>1. UMTS is there in SF and was done by AT&T so they must have adequate
>>bandwidth available to the cell sites to support that. That would also
>>make lots of bandwidth available for EDGE.
>
>
> I'm using the "orange" (old Cingular) network, not the "blue" (ATTWS) network,
> so that wouldn't apply.
>
>
>>2. The Limitatation, per knowledgeable people before Cingular gagged
>>them, is that there is not enough bandwidth at the cell sites and they
>>have programmed the system to service voice before data. So while class
>>10 can deliver four downlink channels,
>
>
> Timeslots.
>
>
>>in practice Cingular only gives
>>one. And sometimes zero. (That would explain while at the Grand Hyatt
>>in NYC, with 100% signal I could not establish a data connection for
>>three days.)
>
>
> You wrote:
>
> My experience is that the data transfer on the EDGE PC card (Sony
> Ericsson) is now less that it was. Before on a good day I could get
> 80kbits/sec download rate but now often only 5 to 10. Also it downloads
> some then just stops. Sort of like they have a limit on the number of
> bytes you can download in one session. ...
>
> Your timeslot limitation theory wouldn't explain that. With a timeslot limit,
> you should still see a steady speed, just lower. 80 Kbps might indeed be two
> timeslots, but even one timeslot would be 40 Kbps (not "only 5 to 10").
>
There are a number of things that can result in poor performance and
they can occur in combination. I am listing some of those. You should
not try to account for it all with one only.

>
>>3. For business reasons, Cingular wants former AT&T people to switch
>>to Cingular
>
>
> Yep.
>
>
>>(they collect the early termination fee,
>
>
> Nope.
Store told me otherwise.
>
>
>>sell new equipment,
>
>
> Needed for the "orange" network.
>
>
>>get a new contract
>
>
> Yep.
>
>
>>and charge higher fees,
>
>
> Not necessarily.
>
>
>>and move them to the Cingular
>>billing system) so as an incentive, they may have been (many complaints
>>to the FCC and FTC I think forced them to back off on this)
>>intentionally reducing connectivity to former AT&T devices.
>
>
> I've seen no real evidence of that.
Does not mean it is not happening.
>
>
>>I was told
>>by a Cingular and former AT&T data specialist that they had changed the
>>system so that former AT&T customers could only connect to former AT&T
>>towers and that they had actually reduced the number of them.
>
>
> Only for TDMA -- "blue" (old ATTWS) *GSM* customers have free roaming on
> "orange" (Cingular).

That makes sense.
>
>
>>Just two
>>days ago, a Cingular store rep, told me with a tone of contempt in his
>>voice, you should know that if you switch to Cingular you will have much
>>better data service than if you stay with AT&T.
>
>
> What does it matter what one store rep might say?

Yes it absolutely does. In the absence of any formal statements from
Cingular, the store rep is the official voice of Cingular. No you or
others on the forums.
>
>
>>(Somehow, I thought
>>Cingular and AT&T Wireless were now the same company.)
>
>
> Same company, different networks.

I don't care, One customer one company. Cingular in my opinion is doing
a very bad job and is not at the level of ethics or professionalism that
I enjoyed with AT&T
>
>
>>Complaints on
>>the forum show that the problems are identical regardless of which SIM
>>card or account one has.
>
>
> I disagree.

If a new sim and device is needed to get advertised performance then it
should be provided without cost.
>
>
>>4. I hear that as part of the UMTS (HSDPA??) roll out here, they have
>>interrupted the data service for testing. Also I have continually heard
>>that they are having network integration problems.
>
>
> Why do you put so much stock in rumors?
Because Cingular will not say anything officially, despite many requests.
>
>
>>As an engineer, it is
>>a little hard for me to think that would be so difficult as it appears
>>to be, at least if they know what they are doing.
>
>
> It is in fact a hard job.

Hard is relative to ability and motivation.
>

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

In <HeESe.12343$IT4.8180@trnddc04> on Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:17:59 GMT, J
Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> In <l5hSe.8078$QN4.7818@trnddc02> on Sat, 03 Sep 2005 12:57:53 GMT, J
>> Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I have tested the performance with numerous tools and the best one, from
>>>NIST if I recall correctly, states that the link is limited upstream.
>>
>> What's that supposed to mean?
>
>That means that the bandwidth available to data is less than advertised

Advertised? Really? Where?

>and under control of the carrier no inherent in the technology.

Equally true of other higher-speed data services.

>>>in practice Cingular only gives
>>>one. And sometimes zero. (That would explain while at the Grand Hyatt
>>>in NYC, with 100% signal I could not establish a data connection for
>>>three days.)
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> My experience is that the data transfer on the EDGE PC card (Sony
>> Ericsson) is now less that it was. Before on a good day I could get
>> 80kbits/sec download rate but now often only 5 to 10. Also it downloads
>> some then just stops. Sort of like they have a limit on the number of
>> bytes you can download in one session. ...
>>
>> Your timeslot limitation theory wouldn't explain that. With a timeslot limit,
>> you should still see a steady speed, just lower. 80 Kbps might indeed be two
>> timeslots, but even one timeslot would be 40 Kbps (not "only 5 to 10").
>>
>There are a number of things that can result in poor performance and
>they can occur in combination. I am listing some of those.

What you are listing isn't valid.

>You should
>not try to account for it all with one only.

What I wrote is correct.

>Store told me otherwise.

Stores aren't reliable sources of accurate information.

>> I've seen no real evidence of that.

>Does not mean it is not happening.

Proof (not just guesswork)?

>> What does it matter what one store rep might say?
>
>Yes it absolutely does. In the absence of any formal statements from
>Cingular, the store rep is the official voice of Cingular. ...

The "official voice of Cingular" comes only from corporate.

>> Same company, different networks.
>
>I don't care, One customer one company. Cingular in my opinion is doing
>a very bad job and is not at the level of ethics or professionalism that
>I enjoyed with AT&T

I find Cingular better than ATTWS, which was well known for customer service
issues in the last year or so of its life.

>If a new sim and device is needed to get advertised performance then it
>should be provided without cost.

Again, what "advertised" performance? Please provide a link to support that
claim.

>> Why do you put so much stock in rumors?

>Because Cingular will not say anything officially, despite many requests.

Not a good reason.

>>>As an engineer, it is
>>>a little hard for me to think that would be so difficult as it appears
>>>to be, at least if they know what they are doing.
>>
>> It is in fact a hard job.
>
>Hard is relative to ability and motivation.

Indeed -- to those not properly trained, it's even harder.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

>My old CDMA card on Sprint runs at a hardware 144Kbs but because of
>compression the sustained rate while not moving is usually between 300 and
>408Kbs. At 80mph, transfer rates drop to a little over 200Kbs.
>
>I tested the new Verizon cards in a notebook and non-moving. They get burst
>rates up to 4Mbs but their data coverage is only slightly better than a
>barbed wire fence.

I have a VZW card in my laptop, and in NYC it's almost like
broadband. Their high-speed data is the only mobile high-speed data
option that offers high speed, at least that I know of. I would love
to move to GSM, but nothing comparable is available.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens & digital camera reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------