Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 36 of 36
  1. #21  
    Originally posted by Bobacus
    Doctorc- Reason 3g seems slower (right now) compared to 2g is 3 reasons.

    1. 2g used a WAP based browser and you could only view certain sites.

    >> With my samsung i300 I was able to visit any site on the internet, and download full web pages including graphics. The i300 was at least as fast as current 3g, if not faster, for doing this.


    2. More data is being thrown around on 3g (your'e gonna get 50-60kps min or as high as 100kps.)

    >> Actually, almost none of us here are getting anywhere near 50 to 60 kbps minimum. We are mostly getting around 10kbps on a good day. I typically see from 500 to 900 bps (less than one kiloBYTE per second).

    3. Location. Location . LOCATION! It's a wireless signal folks. Does you wireless phone at home always give you a crisp signal?

    >> I work in the DC metro area. I've tested the signal at many sites around town, including directly inside and outside of the SPCS store on Quince Orchard road. I live 50 miles away. I've also tested this phone and the 3g data in Frederick Maryland at several locations as well as in my home town in several locations. I've also tested it at several times during the day, ranging from 4am EST to midnight to high noon. At no time, have I received AVERAGE throughput of greater than 1 kiloBYTE per second. This is extremely slow.

    >> I'm not trying to disagree with you or start any kind of flame war here. I truly and honestly appreciate all of your help and the fact that you care to post here. We all appreciate it and hope that you continue to do so. I'm just trying to state the facts clearly. Right now, nobody (with the exception of maybe 1 person) is experiencing an average throughput of greater than 1 k BYTE per second. (10 kbps). This is very disappointing to most of us, as our old 2g handsets would run at about this speed. I personally notice no difference in performance from my old 2g Samsung i300 to my new 3g Treo 300. I'm willing to chalk this up to "growing pains" of the network and the fact that SPCS wasn't really ready to roll this out and probably released it early due to budgetary or marketing issues. But at the same time, I want to make people aware (especially technical people at SPCS like you) that the system is not functioning as advertised or as intended. I hope through communication and detailed information sharing we can get to the bottom of what is wrong, so that 3g truly lives up to the speed it is supposed to be capable of. Thank you again for your support here and I look forward to reading more of your posts

    BTW: If someone wants to start a faq thread and I would respond to what I can, I think it would be easier.
  2. #22  
    zippy57, you know, I had been thinking exactly the same thing. Is it a coincidence that my provisioning came on the heals of the little crash I had (with the SMS message)... *immediately* after a hard reset. Maybe the deal is -- once we hard reset, it triggers a reprovisioning! That's what I'm trying tonight!
    Doug
    Doug
  3. #23  
    Originally posted by DougLucas
    Maybe the deal is -- once we hard reset, it triggers a reprovisioning! That's what I'm trying tonight!
    Doug
    Could be. I think the reason I finally went through with it was because the Tier 2 tech person had made some corrections in my profile on Sprint's servers since my original activation,. My thought was that hopefully the Hard Reset would retrigger the whole provisioning process with the now correct server-side settings.
  4. #24  
    Umm, BobAccus. Even if you only get one bar, your speed will be as fast as more bars. It will be slower if you are losing the signal at times. Digital data transfer is not affected by the signal strength, unless it is intermittent.


    I APPRECIATE THE SPRINT TECH CHECKING IN...

    Your company is lying to customers. Maybe you can have the CEO apologize on the board and tell people that their 3G speed is not coming close to the 50-70 kbps.

    OK, I actually love Sprint, so I'll be patient, but I continue to be surprised by the slow speed. Damn, Sprint's marketing talks about next generation applications, and people are getting 10kbps!!!

    Current PCS reps at stores are claiming 50-70kbps. That is not just marketing hype, it is plain old lying.

    I can appreciate that it will get faster. When? We are paying for the service now. If Sprint advertises and claims 50-70, then don't charge me the same amount if I get 10!

    My 2 cents...

    (Did I mention I love Sprint )

    -Jerry
  5. #25  
    Originally posted by doctorc:
    I still recant what I have said previously, your CSR reps have no idea what they are doing or talking about yet
    Er, you mean you don't recant what you said previously.
  6. #26  
    you can do a hard reset on the treo without losing your networking provisions... I've already a few hard resets while working on installing the prc's that are needed to run pqa's....
  7. #27  
    Transfer speed is not a function of signal strength? Is that true? Why?
  8. #28  
    Originally posted by Dan Harkless
    Originally posted by doctorc:
    Er, you mean you don't recant what you said previously.
    Uh yah

    I'm a scientist not an english major... hehehe...
  9. #29  
    Workpermit, I am rather stunned frankly, that bobaccus says that signal strength has an effect on the transfer speed. Maybe he can enlighten us. I don't know the 3G network technology.

    Supposedly, digital networks run at the same speed no matter the signal strength. It is 0 and 1s. You have a connection or you don't. Do less bars mean that less packets arrive at your phone? I don't know. Bob may be able to help out.

    However, I think bobaccus believed that the network was running at 50-60 kbps. If I was him, I'd be asking my higher ups what is going on! He and most other Sprint techs have been told the system will run at 50-60kbps. Oops, it's not.

    They'll have a few weeks to fix it before the media backlash.

    -Jerry
  10. #30  
    Supposedly, digital networks run at the same speed no matter the signal strength. It is 0 and 1s. You have a connection or you don't. Do less bars mean that less packets arrive at your phone? I don't know. Bob may be able to help out.
    It ends up as some analog modulation scheme when it finally hits the airwaves. As in any scheme, your bandwidth is limited by the ratio of signal power to noise.

    To transmit voice, the system needs enough signal relative to noise to "guarantee" a steady 14kbps throughput ( I think sprint uses a 13or 14k codec?). So, assuming you're in an area where you just barely avoid getting intermittant drops, I can't see how you can get more than 14kbps through on data. Not without boosting the power. So I could certainly beleive that in a marginal signal area your throughput would get reduced from a theoretical 50kbps to 14kbps.

    I really don't know a lot of the specifics of CDMA2000 technoloy as implemented by sprint. Its certainly conceivable though that reduce bandwidth as signal to noise ratio degrades.

    Of course, 14kbps is all we're getting (even with 4 bars).
  11. #31  
    Originally posted by gcaussade
    Workpermit, I am rather stunned frankly, that bobaccus says that signal strength has an effect on the transfer speed. Maybe he can enlighten us. I don't know the 3G network technology.

    Supposedly, digital networks run at the same speed no matter the signal strength. It is 0 and 1s. You have a connection or you don't. Do less bars mean that less packets arrive at your phone? I don't know. Bob may be able to help out.

    However, I think bobaccus believed that the network was running at 50-60 kbps. If I was him, I'd be asking my higher ups what is going on! He and most other Sprint techs have been told the system will run at 50-60kbps. Oops, it's not.

    They'll have a few weeks to fix it before the media backlash.

    -Jerry
    To bobaccus 's credit I believe that digital signals rely on "retrys" when they aren't sure if they saw an 0 or 1. With weak signal strength, there could be more retrys. However, the job of modern communication devices is to overcome this issue as well as possible and not insist that you are right next to a cell tower to get decent throughput. I think we're probably all guessing when it comes to the throughput other than the Fireviewer app mentioned. Possibly streaming sources force a steadier packet stream.
  12. #32  
    To bobaccus 's credit I believe that digital signals rely on "retrys" when they aren't sure if they saw an 0 or 1.
    As I said, I'm not an expert. But as I understand it, bandwidth in CDMA equates to received power at the cell. For analog voice transmissions, I thought CDMA systems constantly adjust power to make sure as little is used as necessary, and compensate for this by using coding gain through the use of forward error correction and other approaches. The rate of encoding, or chip rate, is constant for voice data, and if more actual data is carried by the constant chip rate, then there will be less coding gain. Therefore, it's necessary to use more power instead.
  13. #33  
    I don't think digital implies a weak signal is as good as a bad one. If you have low signal strength some packets will be missed and have to be re-sent.
  14. #34  
    I don't think digital implies a weak signal is as good as a bad one. If you have low signal strength some packets will be missed and have to be re-sent.
    Maybe at the IP level (rather high level protocol). But as I said, I understand that sprint CDMA technology (for voice) keeps a constant 14kbps chip rate and adjustes the power to achieve that rate. So in marginal signal areas, the cell is transmitting at the highest power allowed, and getting 14kbps through. Data is going no faster than 14kbps in these marginal areas. Unless 3G is boosting power, you don't get any more than that.

    Boosting power however has bad side effects. Keep in mind cdma is spread spectrum technology. Boosting power reduces the number of cells that can operate. I doubt CDMA2000 is doing that. I would assume that it simply degrades throughput as S/N ratios degrade.
  15. #35  
    Originally posted by PCMusician
    I think we're probably all guessing when it comes to the throughput other than the Fireviewer app mentioned. Possibly streaming sources force a steadier packet stream.
    This was verified by a Verizon employee on alt.cellular.verizon. He was explaining that low-bandwidth applications like ping or ssh wouldn't cause the 1xRTT network to request Supplemental Channels (SCH) to increase the bandwidth beyond the Fundamental Channel (FCH) bandwidth of 9.6 Kpbs.

    I posted asking if anyone had tried the experiment of streaming something in the background during an ssh session, but no one replied.
  16. #36  
    Originally posted by Bobacus
    Doctorc- Reason 3g seems slower (right now) compared to 2g is 3 reasons.

    1. 2g used a WAP based browser and you could only view certain sites.

    2. More data is being thrown around on 3g (your'e gonna get 50-60kps min or as high as 100kps.)

    3. Location. Location . LOCATION! It's a wireless signal folks. Does you wireless phone at home always give you a crisp signal?

    BTW: If someone wants to start a faq thread and I would respond to what I can, I think it would be easier.
    Hi
    its been a week since your post-alomst- the websites still not working.
    2)max speeds vary between 20-40 not 100 anywhere on this board
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions