Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1.    #1  
    There are several other threads that discuss the latency and slower than expected speed associated with data calls we are making over Sprint Vision network.

    Alot of the discussion has to do with the problems of routing these calls over the radio portion of the cell network. This routing is nothing new yet claims of increased speed and "Clarity You Can See and Hear" are being advertised. It sounds alot like people are using the shortcomings of 2 and 2.5G technologies to explain why 3G is slow.

    Anybody know what's been improved in this area to justify these claims ? I believe we know it's actually a pre-implementation of 3G (CDMA2000 1RX ?) but what's improved in the last mile ? Maybe VisionAssist or one of the Sprint Techs can give us some ideas ?
  2. #2  
    See my reply in the 500ms thread ... but in a nutshell, nothing is going to make radio waves get to your handset any faster. The speed of light is the speed of light.

    What has changed is the ability to deliver a greater number of bytes in the same time interval. Before, the existing technology only allowed your phone to receive 14,400 bits in a single second. Now, you can theoretically receive 10 times as much - 144,000 bits in a single second. They still arrive at the same speed - the speed of light - you're just getting a bigger payload each second.

  3.    #3  
    This was extracted from a quote out on alt.cellular.sprintpcs that, to my sort of says the same thing as you reply. More data over the same carrier which some people would call compression / increased efficiency. The explaination here is that voice uses half the bandwidth it did with 2G allowing for more capacity. It almost suggests that more, rather than less, capacity will be available as Vision rolls out. The technology is more complex and I'll admit I don't totally understand it, but for those posting why the latency is so bad (and it may be for ping tests because of their nature) there may be hope.

    As far as user experience, browsing is subjectively slow and email is pretty good. Browsing WAP sites is better but there looks to be more than a last mile for browsing.

    somewhat paraphrased from alt.cellular.sprintpcs:

    "Technically, PCS Vision is CDMA2000 1xRTT, AKA the first stage of
    Sprint's "3G" upgrade. On the voice side, 1xRTT reduces the bandwidth of each call by half, permitting increased network capacity, which can in turn lead to fewer dropped calls and, in some cases, slightly better fringe coverage. As people upgrade to 3G-voice phones, such as your A460, these benefits will gradually become reality. On the data side, 1xRTT is simply faster and more efficient data.

    High-speed data makes certain other services feasible, such as wireless imaging, (taking and sending color pictures,) viewing more complex, color Wireless Web sites, downloading and running small online applications and games, and even viewing full web pages on handhelds and laptops. Since all these things are now actually usable because of the faster speeds, Sprint is marketing it all as "PCS Vision".
  4. veroi's Avatar
    178 Posts
    Global Posts
    179 Global Posts
    These are nice explanations, but one thing I do not understand is why? with TREO and " 3G" system it takes longer to get my mail and some websites that when compared with a T-Mobile Pocket PC phone. I have run some tests and I can tell that T-Mobile is GSM/GPRS and their speeds do not have to envy the Sprint system. I compared both systems for two days already. The integration with e-mail in particular Outlook is really good. This is just a comments from a Sprint customer waiting for the famous faster than 14.4 speeds.

Posting Permissions