 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / December 20053G in my area
I noticed that for my zip code, I can buy the Sierra Wireless 860 card. Does this mean that 3G is available in my area? I can't find any coverage maps on Cingular that show exactly where it would be the 3G service vs. EDGE service. Anyone have an idea? FYI, I'm in Hartford county, CT. >I noticed that for my zip code, I can buy the Sierra Wireless 860 card. >Does this mean that 3G is available in my area? Not necessarily. >I can't find any >coverage maps on Cingular that show exactly where it would be the 3G >service vs. EDGE service. > >Anyone have an idea? FYI, I'm in Hartford county, CT. See "Where are Cingular coverage maps?" in the FAQ below.  SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> I see no 3G HSDPA/UMTS maps in your link, or your links links. Doesn't help the OP much. Any idea when it's coming out in Denver? >I see no 3G HSDPA/UMTS maps in your link, or your links links. Doesn't >help the OP much. He's talking about "EDGE". SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > > >I see no 3G HSDPA/UMTS maps in your link, or your links links. Doesn't > >help the OP much. > > He's talking about "EDGE". 3G and Edge are not the same thing. >> >I see no 3G HSDPA/UMTS maps in your link, or your links links. Doesn't >> >help the OP much. >> >> He's talking about "EDGE". >3G and Edge are not the same thing. Nokia, Sony Ericsson and other major players disagree. (See my prior posts for links.) SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Nokia, Sony Ericsson and other major players disagree. > (See my prior posts for links.) Yeah, they'd sell you a bridge in Brooklyn if they could. LOL Anytime you believe marketing hype, you're in trouble. Or as someone once said: "There's a sucker born every minute". What matters is real world performance. Doesn't 'almost' everyone agree? I looked at their web site for products supporting the new speeds and seems all they list are laptop cards. Are there any phones coming out soon that support it? As well, what is the speed of 3G? >I looked at their web site for products supporting the new speeds and >seems all they list are laptop cards. Are there any phones coming out >soon that support it? As well, what is the speed of 3G? See the Cingular FAQ below. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > He's talking about "EDGE". Bob wrote: > I can't find any coverage maps on Cingular that show exactly where > it would be the 3G service vs. EDGE service. Put on your glasses. The OP wants to know about 3G service. EDGE is not 3G - it is considered 2.5G. Hey, but you're in luck. A link I had found referenced, I couldn't gain access to. But checking today, it works! http://www.cingular.com/business/3G_cov_maps_pop I'll post the original page where I got to the above link. It has additional 3G maps. http://pcsintel.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1095&mode=thread&orde r=0&thold=0 In addition the following link was pointed out to me on another forum. It has 3G maps as well. http://www.howardforums.com/archive/topic/750810-1.html >> He's talking about "EDGE". > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Put on your glasses. The OP wants to know about 3G service. I stand corrected. >EDGE is >not 3G - it is considered 2.5G. I disagree. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> I wrote: > EDGE is not 3G - it is considered 2.5G. > I disagree. Take your pick.............. http://www.cnet.com/4520-7363_1-6361076-4.html http://www.mobilein.com/2.5G.htm http://www.devx.com/wireless/Door/11264 There are some that consider EDGE 3G. But mainly they are basing that on the theoretical maximum thoroughput of EDGE which is 384 KBPS. Cingular does not approach that kind of speed with their EDGE network. >I wrote: >> EDGE is not 3G - it is considered 2.5G. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >There are some that consider EDGE 3G. Indeed, including the major cellular players; e.g., <http://www.ericsson.com/products/hp/Mobile_Broadband_EDGE_bs.shtml> <http://www.nokia.com/link?cid=EDITORIAL_1485> >But mainly they are basing that >on the theoretical maximum thoroughput of EDGE which is 384 KBPS. >Cingular does not approach that kind of speed with their EDGE network. It's actually based on real-world speeds. Regardless, debating these arbitrary labels is silly and pointless, in part because they are based more on politics than on technical realities. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > There are some that consider EDGE 3G. But mainly they are basing that > on the theoretical maximum thoroughput of EDGE which is 384 KBPS. > Cingular does not approach that kind of speed with their EDGE network. Argh, the sub-dividing of 1G/2G/3G has gotten out of hand. Technically, EDGE is not 3G, but some people refer to it as 2.5G, some as 2.75G. John Navas wrote: > Regardless, debating these arbitrary labels is silly and pointless, in part > because they are based more on politics than on technical realities. Well, on at least that we can agree. >> There are some that consider EDGE 3G. But mainly they are basing that >> on the theoretical maximum thoroughput of EDGE which is 384 KBPS. >> Cingular does not approach that kind of speed with their EDGE network. > >Argh, the sub-dividing of 1G/2G/3G has gotten out of hand. Technically, >EDGE is not 3G, ... Actually it is. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> To JN: Balony! I am here in NY harbor right now. I have Cingular's EDGE service and my coworker has Verizon's ED-VO service. I did several speedtests. Following are my results. And no, I did not confuse upload and download speeds. Both the EDGE and ED-VO speed tests were done from the same location, to the same site, within 5 minutes of one another. I also tried disconnecting and reconnecting to the service, but no real changes resulted. BTW, I had 5 bars of signal strength when I did these tests. Admittedly, my speeds are usually better, but near NYC, I'm just lucky to have a stable connection. Note, I have seen EDGE download speeds of up to 200 KBPS in some areas. Download Upload - EDGE 24 87 32 64 40 80 30 105 Download Upload - ED-VO 528 61 I have never seen any speeds on EDGE approaching 528 KBPS! You tell me, which is the TRUE 3G network?! {I am not making any claims regarding UTMS here} This test also tends to confirm statements made elseware that Verizon's service is superior to Cingular's in the NYC area. Cingular just can't handle the traffic as well as Verizon can (at least in this area). Otherwise, EDGE would be up to the task here in NYC and give at least advertised download rates. >To JN: Balony! Noted. >I have never seen any speeds on EDGE approaching 528 KBPS! You tell >me, which is the TRUE 3G network?! ... Both (EDGE and EV-DO). Is EV-DO sometimes faster than EDGE? Yes. Is EV-DO sometimes slower than EDGE? Also yes. What matters is the typical speed, not the peak speed. I can't speak for your area, but here in the SF Bay Area, EDGE (Class 10) is quite consistent at about 150 Kbps. By comparison, EV-DO ranges from about 100 Kbps to about 300 Kbps, with a typical speed of about 170 Kbps. Thus there isn't much difference between them. Perhaps there is more excess EV-DO network capacity in your area. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> As a matter of fact my coworker on Verizon EV-DO performed another speed test after we left NY harbor for LI sound. He got 775 KBPS down, 60 KBPS up. This is without the Venturi feature enabled. I performed a large file download with my Cingular EDGE connection in LI sound and saw download speeds for a couple of minutes hovering around 220 KBPS, with one spike of 240 KBPS. EV-DO knocks the pants off of EDGE. I just hope UTMS/HSDPA performs as well as EV-DO when it is available in the areas I travel. >As a matter of fact my coworker on Verizon EV-DO performed another >speed test after we left NY harbor for LI sound. He got 775 KBPS down, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >LI sound and saw download speeds for a couple of minutes hovering >around 220 KBPS, with one spike of 240 KBPS. Something is almost certainly wrong with your testing, because those speeds are very unlikely in the real world. I suspect caching. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Something is almost certainly wrong with your testing, because those speeds > are very unlikely in the real world. I suspect caching. The first time he ran the test he got 528 KBPS. No chance for caching there. The later tests, maybe. But I don't think so. Although he did run the later tests when I wasn't around. As far as my own testing on EDGE goes, I always clear the cache between tests - just in case. When he got 528 KBPS, we were in NY harbor and I was getting GPRS download speeds on my EDGE connection. When we were in LI Sound, he got 775 KBPS down, and I got some of the best EDGE speeds I have seen. The area you are located in makes a huge difference - at least with EDGE. >From Verizon's website regarding EV-DO: http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobileoptions/broadband/serviceoverview.jsp > Speed > Quickly download complex files and view email attachments with average download > speeds of 400-700 kbps capable of reaching up to 2.0Mbps. The REAL world. It's where I live. ; = ) >In <1134064642.751051.271940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> on 8 Dec 2005 >09:57:22 -0800, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>LI sound and saw download speeds for a couple of minutes hovering >>around 220 KBPS, with one spike of 240 KBPS. >> Something is almost certainly wrong with your testing, because those speeds >> are very unlikely in the real world. I suspect caching. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >run the later tests when I wasn't around. As far as my own testing on >EDGE goes, I always clear the cache between tests - just in case. Here's why I'm very skeptical: Current GPRS and EDGE implementations are limited to 4 time slots. Theoretical maximum raw speeds (including overhead) are: * 80 Kbps (4 x 20.0 Kbps) for GPRS with CS4 coding. * 237 Kbps (4 x 59.2 Kbps) for EDGE with MCS9 coding. But those speeds won't normally be seen because the those particular codings are very limited in range and very sensitive to errors. Thus in practice the best raw speeds are: * 58 Kbps (4 x 14.4 Kbps) for GPRS with CS3 coding. * 179 Kbps (4 x 44.8 Kbps) for EDGE with MCS7 coding. (Cingular initially deployed GPRS limited to CD2 coding, and only enabled CS3 coding when the system has proven itself.) Net data throughput (less protocol and error correction overheads) is significantly less, on the order of: * 52 Kbps for GPRS * 160 Kbps for EDGE Thus, as I wrote, the EDGE speeds you're reporting are very unlikely in the real world. The issues are somewhat different for EV-DO (cell load is a factor), but the speeds reported by your coworker are likewise far above expected real world speeds. I can't speak for your area, but here in the SF Bay Area, actual EV-DO downlink ranges from as low as 100 Kbps to about 300 Kbps. (1xRTT likewise delivers typical speeds far below theoretical maximums.) That's why I suspect caching, data compression, or measurement error. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > I have never seen any speeds on EDGE approaching 528 KBPS! You tell > me, which is the TRUE 3G network?! {I am not making any claims > regarding UTMS here} Cingular does not claim that EDGE is 3G. Using the 3G air interface does not make EDGE 3G. Navas has been claiming that EDGE is 3G for years, but you will be hard-pressed to find anyone else in the world that believes that. > This test also tends to confirm statements made elseware that Verizon's > service is superior to Cingular's in the NYC area. Cingular just can't > handle the traffic as well as Verizon can (at least in this area). > Otherwise, EDGE would be up to the task here in NYC and give at least > advertised download rates. AT&T Wireless has had severe capacity issues in NYC. Cingular was using the T-Mobile GSM network prior to the acquisition. >> I have never seen any speeds on EDGE approaching 528 KBPS! You tell >> me, which is the TRUE 3G network?! {I am not making any claims [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >you will be hard-pressed to find anyone else in the world that believes >that. I guess you're speaking for yourself. I have no such problem; e.g., <http://www.ericsson.com/products/hp/Mobile_Broadband_EDGE_bs.shtml> <http://www.nokia.com/link?cid=EDITORIAL_1485> SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > I wrote: >> EDGE is not 3G - it is considered 2.5G. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > on the theoretical maximum thoroughput of EDGE which is 384 KBPS. > Cingular does not approach that kind of speed with their EDGE network. Cingular has never claimed that EDGE was 3G. What they said was "EDGE is recognized as the most economical way to overlay GSM/GPRS to achieve 3G capabilities" This statement is intentionally vague. 3G "capabilities" which could mean a lot of things, i.e. services that were expected to be available on 3G are now available on EDGE, etc. This is in fact the same sort of claim the Finnish carrier Sonera alluded to when they claimed that they had deployed "3G." Read "http://newsletter.nordicwirelesswatch.com/story.php?story_id=2133" "There used be, before they were stolen, a couple of fairly concrete criteria for 3G networks. One said that it must use the 3GPP (3G Partnership Program) defined air interface and the other that it must be capable of transmitting 2 megabits per second between the network and the 3G handset." >> I wrote: >>> EDGE is not 3G - it is considered 2.5G. >> >>> I disagree. Here is what you snipped: <http://www.ericsson.com/products/hp/Mobile_Broadband_EDGE_bs.shtml> EDGE is 3G radio technology that triples the high-speed data communication capacity of GPRS-enhanced GSM networks, enabling GSM operators to provide high-speed mobile Internet services over existing infrastructure and with an existing GSM license. <http://www.nokia.com/link?cid=EDITORIAL_1485> The world's first GSM/GPRS/EDGE 3G phone, the Nokia 6200, was launched in November 2002 and has been in shops since May 2003. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> Again JN, you are giving theory as opposed to real life measured facts. I have not had a decent EDGE connection in the last week to make any further tests with EDGE worthwhile at this point. But my coworker did perform some more EV-DO tests. > By comparison, EV-DO ranges from about 100 Kbps to about > 300 Kbps, with a typical speed of about 170 Kbps. > Thus there isn't much difference between them. > Perhaps there is more excess EV-DO network capacity > in your area. > Don't depend on what programs report. > dslreports is notoriously unreliable. > For dependable results, download uncompressible data by FTP, time how long it > takes, and calculate throughput from size and time. Do at least three trials. > Restart the computer between successive trials. > Here's a good test file: > <ftp://ftp.sonic.net/pub/testfile.compressed.10meg> OK, a couple of days ago my coworker on Verizon's EV-DO Broadband Access performed the speed test from dslreports.com. The actual test site we used for all speed tests was http://middletown.speedtest.frontiernet.net/ . The cache was cleared before and between all tests. He tested twice and got 1075 Kbps download the first time and 966 Kbps download the second time. Next he went to the site you posted and ran the test one time: ftp://ftp.sonic.net/pub/testfile.compressed.10meg . I timed the download from the time it started. It took 1minute, 18seconds. This equals 78 seconds. Take 10 Mb X 1024 (1024 bytes to a megabyte) = 10,240 bytes. Divide 10,240 by 78 and you get 131.28 kilobytes/sec. Multiply that by 8 and you get 1050 kilobits/sec. Sure a lot different than the 'facts' you posted above. I see consistent speeds with EV-DO under good conditions to be around 1000 Kbps. ' Smacks EDGE's behind. LOL I wrote: > I performed a large file download with my Cingular EDGE connection in > LI sound and saw download speeds for a couple of minutes hovering > around 220 KBPS, with one spike of 240 KBPS. Noticed I said a "one spike of 240 KBPS". That's exactly what it was - a spike. However I did see the speeds average around 220 KBPS for a couple of minutes. Note that I did upgrade the firmware to R4D9 in my GC83 card on Dec. 6th, 2005. The upgrade was supposed to 'improve performance'. I don't know if it had any real effect or not. Notice what PC Magazine wrote: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1770749,00.asp > And though Class 10's theoretical maximum speed is 236 Kbps, we maxed > out at 220 Kbps during testing. That's more than three times as fast as dial-up, > but still much slower than cable, DSL, or EV-DO. Hmmm.... Who to believe? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.