Hands up who didn't see this coming.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...e#contentSwap1

Liked this bit though...

"A new breed of smartphones has enabled mobile users to browse the web at
blistering speeds"

I s'pose that the author of the article is still into dialing up BBSes with a
28k modem...

Blistering speeds, 3G ain't.

I've experienced it on 4 different phones now. Samsung A501, Palm Treo 750 and a
Motorola V9 on Telstra's NextG network. A Nokia N95 8gig on Optus' 2100 3G
network, and have used my daughter's 3G phones on the 3 network to see what it
was like.

That PoS Kombi that they use on the Telstra ads is faster than the 3G networks
that are s'posed to be "blisteringly fast".

---

› See More: Hands up who didn't see this coming.

"Snapper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...e#contentSwap1
>
> Liked this bit though...
>
> "A new breed of smartphones has enabled mobile users to browse the web at
> blistering speeds"
>
> I s'pose that the author of the article is still into dialing up BBSes
> with a
> 28k modem...
>
> Blistering speeds, 3G ain't.

A lot better than most other widely available wireless technologies.

> I've experienced it on 4 different phones now. Samsung A501, Palm Treo 750
> and a
> Motorola V9 on Telstra's NextG network. A Nokia N95 8gig on Optus' 2100 3G
> network, and have used my daughter's 3G phones on the 3 network to see
> what it
> was like.

That isn't very conclusive. You've already shown a number of times that
you're not very good with technology. I'd put your poor experience down to
operator error.

--
Kwyj.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:11:10 +1000, Snapper wrote:

> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...92331116.html?
page=fullpage#contentSwap1
>
> Liked this bit though...
>
> "A new breed of smartphones has enabled mobile users to browse the web
> at blistering speeds"
>
> I s'pose that the author of the article is still into dialing up BBSes
> with a 28k modem...
>
> Blistering speeds, 3G ain't.
>
> I've experienced it on 4 different phones now. Samsung A501, Palm Treo
> 750 and a Motorola V9 on Telstra's NextG network. A Nokia N95 8gig on
> Optus' 2100 3G network, and have used my daughter's 3G phones on the 3
> network to see what it was like.
>
> That PoS Kombi that they use on the Telstra ads is faster than the 3G
> networks that are s'posed to be "blisteringly fast".

I get speeds faster than ADSL1 (1.5Mbps).

Kwyjibo wrote...

> That isn't very conclusive. You've already shown a number of times that
> you're not very good with technology. I'd put your poor experience down to
> operator error.

Wota wanker (sorry for the plagiarism, Rod).

You got no ****ing idea at all. You can put my experiences down to whatever you
like. Makes no difference whatsoever that 3G ain't "blistering speeds".

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:37:26 +1000, Snapper wrote:

> Kwyjibo wrote...
>
>> That isn't very conclusive. You've already shown a number of times that
>> you're not very good with technology. I'd put your poor experience down
>> to operator error.
>
> Wota wanker (sorry for the plagiarism, Rod).
>
> You got no ****ing idea at all. You can put my experiences down to
> whatever you like. Makes no difference whatsoever that 3G ain't
> "blistering speeds".

Which definition of "blistering speeds" are you using?

Will Kemp wrote...

> Compared to the 300bps used by some TTYs for the blind, even 14.4kbps
> could be considered "blistering".

When I first started using NextG I used my phone as a modem. The best that I
could get was around 180kbps, which isn't even up to the min. DSL standard.

That was 18 months ago. Maybe things have progressed since then. But even now,
using the mobile for web browsing is slow. And I've tried it on 5 different 3G
phones on 3 different 3G networks. 3/Telstra 3G, Optus and NextG.

When Telstra, for example, claims speeds of "up to" 3mbps or whatever, then when
it's below half a megabit/sec then it can hardly be claimed as "blistering" no
matter what frame of reference that you use.

I would hope that things have improved since then. But if mobile browsing and
how slow it sends and receives MMSes, which I'm told is via
HSDPA/Internet/NextG, then I'd suggest that it's anything but "blistering".

Snapper <[email protected]> wrote
> Will Kemp wrote

>> Compared to the 300bps used by some TTYs for the
>> blind, even 14.4kbps could be considered "blistering".

> When I first started using NextG I used my phone as a modem.
> The best that I could get was around 180kbps, which isn't even
> up to the min. DSL standard.

The minimum DSL is actually 128K

> That was 18 months ago. Maybe things have progressed
> since then. But even now, using the mobile for web browsing
> is slow. And I've tried it on 5 different 3G phones on 3
> different 3G networks. 3/Telstra 3G, Optus and NextG.

> When Telstra, for example, claims speeds of "up to" 3mbps or whatever,
> then when it's below half a megabit/sec then it can hardly be claimed as
> "blistering" no matter what frame of reference that you use.

Depends on how easily you blister.

> I would hope that things have improved since then. But if mobile browsing
> and how slow it sends and receives MMSes, which I'm told is via HSDPA/
> Internet/NextG, then I'd suggest that it's anything but "blistering".

Depends on how easily you blister.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:07:40 +1000, Snapper wrote:

> Will Kemp wrote...
>
>> Compared to the 300bps used by some TTYs for the blind, even 14.4kbps
>> could be considered "blistering".
>
> When I first started using NextG I used my phone as a modem. The best
> that I could get was around 180kbps, which isn't even up to the min. DSL
> standard.
>
> That was 18 months ago. Maybe things have progressed since then. But
> even now, using the mobile for web browsing is slow. And I've tried it
> on 5 different 3G phones on 3 different 3G networks. 3/Telstra 3G, Optus
> and NextG.

Then Kwyjibo's right. It's probably operator error on your part.

"Horry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:07:40 +1000, Snapper wrote:
>
>> Will Kemp wrote...
>>
>>> Compared to the 300bps used by some TTYs for the blind, even 14.4kbps
>>> could be considered "blistering".
>>
>> When I first started using NextG I used my phone as a modem. The best
>> that I could get was around 180kbps, which isn't even up to the min. DSL
>> standard.
>>
>> That was 18 months ago. Maybe things have progressed since then. But
>> even now, using the mobile for web browsing is slow. And I've tried it
>> on 5 different 3G phones on 3 different 3G networks. 3/Telstra 3G, Optus
>> and NextG.
>
> Then Kwyjibo's right. It's probably operator error on your part.

There's no 'probably' about it. This clown can't even operate a web browser
without ****ing it up. Then there's his dopey mate, Kemp who complains that
a particular web browser doesn't have a 'stop' button when it's sitting
right in front of its silly looking face.

--
Kwyj

Rod Speed wrote...

> > When I first started using NextG I used my phone as a modem.
> > The best that I could get was around 180kbps, which isn't even
> > up to the min. DSL standard.
>
> The minimum DSL is actually 128K

Bad wording. I should have said "minimum offered download speeds", although that
could be incorrect if we also consider "shaping". In which case, 1kbps could be
considered "minimum". Depends on how much they can ratchet it down to.

Whatever you get the point. It's not broadband, not even under Telstra's
"definition" of the term.

Horry wrote...

> > That was 18 months ago. Maybe things have progressed since then. But
> > even now, using the mobile for web browsing is slow. And I've tried it
> > on 5 different 3G phones on 3 different 3G networks. 3/Telstra 3G, Optus
> > and NextG.
>
> Then Kwyjibo's right. It's probably operator error on your part.

Well, when he gets it right, let us know.

There's no "operator error" in opening a phone's web browser and punching in
URLs.

Just some troll's pathetic attempt at, well, trolling.

Snapper <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Snapper <[email protected]> wrote

>>> When I first started using NextG I used my phone as a modem.
>>> The best that I could get was around 180kbps, which isn't even
>>> up to the min. DSL standard.

>> The minimum DSL is actually 128K

> Bad wording. I should have said "minimum offered download speeds",

Wouldnt have helped, it would still be wrong.

> although that could be incorrect if we also consider "shaping".

I wasnt talking about shaping, I was talking about the pre shaped speed.

> In which case, 1kbps could be considered "minimum".
> Depends on how much they can ratchet it down to.

I wasnt talking about shaping, I was talking about the pre shaped speed.

There were a few operations that have offered 128K and still are.

> Whatever you get the point. It's not broadband, not even under Telstra's "definition" of the term.

Its DSL tho.

> I would hope that things have improved since then. But if mobile browsing
> and
> how slow it sends and receives MMSes, which I'm told is via
> HSDPA/Internet/NextG, then I'd suggest that it's anything but
> "blistering".

Then you probably have your phone in 2G mode.
>

"Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Horry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:07:40 +1000, Snapper wrote:
>>
>>> Will Kemp wrote...
>>>
>>>> Compared to the 300bps used by some TTYs for the blind, even 14.4kbps
>>>> could be considered "blistering".
>>>
>>> When I first started using NextG I used my phone as a modem. The best
>>> that I could get was around 180kbps, which isn't even up to the min. DSL
>>> standard.
>>>
>>> That was 18 months ago. Maybe things have progressed since then. But
>>> even now, using the mobile for web browsing is slow. And I've tried it
>>> on 5 different 3G phones on 3 different 3G networks. 3/Telstra 3G, Optus
>>> and NextG.
>>
>> Then Kwyjibo's right. It's probably operator error on your part.
>
> There's no 'probably' about it. This clown can't even operate a web
> browser without ****ing it up. Then there's his dopey mate, Kemp who
> complains that a particular web browser doesn't have a 'stop' button when
> it's sitting right in front of its silly looking face.

LOL

But the button is meant to be on the LEFT of the address bar not the right,
according to ****wittage Kemp

"Snapper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Horry wrote...
>
>> > That was 18 months ago. Maybe things have progressed since then. But
>> > even now, using the mobile for web browsing is slow. And I've tried it
>> > on 5 different 3G phones on 3 different 3G networks. 3/Telstra 3G,
>> > Optus
>> > and NextG.
>>
>> Then Kwyjibo's right. It's probably operator error on your part.
>
> Well, when he gets it right, let us know.
>
> There's no "operator error" in opening a phone's web browser and punching
> in
> URLs.

You don't use a punch, just type on your keypad.