Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Fido / October 2003

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Mobile call quality is 'poor'

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
twtwwtin - 21 Oct 2003 14:36 GMT
I am sure Steve Punter will not disagree with this...

Mobile phone users have a raw deal with call quality, a report says.

A more expensive handset does not guarantee better quality either because it
depends on your network, say voice quality experts Psytechnics.

Calls on eight handsets across the five networks were tested, and no network
performed very well.

Telecoms watchdog Oftel said it was in everyone's "best interest" to continue
providing information about phones and network choices.

Trade-off

"We found the most expensive handset is not always the best in terms of
quality," John Winchester from Psytechnics told BBC News Online.

"Out of the eight handsets tested, there was a 30% difference in quality between
them."

The handsets tested across the five mobile networks ranged in price from ?40 to
?400 and were some of the most popular phones.

In a competitive mobile market, it is in the interest of operators themselves to
provide consumers with information to make best choices
Oftel spokesperson

The results question whether handset manufacturers are trading in features like
cameras and expensive smart phone technology for voice quality.

In general, the quality of calls on mobiles is 20% worse than calls on
landlines, even though people are paying more for them.

Despite the mobiles showing five bars to indicate a strong signal, the tests
found that did not necessarily mean the call would not break up
mid-conversation.

People could be given more information about which handsets perform best on
which network to help them make informed decisions about the best deals, the
report suggests.

Oftel, the telecoms watchdog, told BBC News Online they continue to work with
operators to make sure people get the information they need.

"In a competitive mobile market, it is in the interest of operators themselves
to provide consumers with information to make best choices," said a
spokesperson.

But she added voice quality had not been raised as an issue for consumers in
their research.

A Nokia spokesperson told BBC News Online the mobile industry has come a long
way since the crackling analogue lines of a few years ago.

"These days we have phones with colour screens, longer battery life and quality
is better than we have ever had.

"As we move to 3G, things will only improve", he said.

Experience

Voice quality is one of the three big issues the mobile industry has to address
in terms of its future growth, along with health issues and call costs, says Mr
Winchester.

As more ITU (International Telecommunications Union) approved software is made
available to operators, network performance and call experience can be evaluated
more easily, he added.

The tests were done using customer experience metrics in 20 different urban
locations, with 150 calls made on GSM networks Vodafone, Orange, O2, T-Mobile,
and the 3G network 3.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/3210082.stm

Published: 2003/10/21 13:00:09 GMT

? BBC MMIII
Steve Punter - 21 Oct 2003 16:50 GMT
>I am sure Steve Punter will not disagree with this...

You're right about that. Sound quality has been a big disappointment (to
varying degrees) on all networks. The best quality seems to be from
Microcell Connexions, but ONLY in areas where Nortel equipment is deployed
(sites AND switches). I'm fortunately to live in an area where voice quality
is excellent, but I know from using my phone in other parts of the GTA that
quality IS NOT consistent across the network.

I keep hoping that SOMEONE has the good sense to release a HIGH FIDELITY
CODEC, and I really don't care which network technology does it. Whoever the
first provider is to bring out such a thing will instantly get my business.
Signature

Steve Punter
http://www.arcx.com/sites

repatch - 21 Oct 2003 18:17 GMT
> >I am sure Steve Punter will not disagree with this...
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> CODEC, and I really don't care which network technology does it. Whoever the
> first provider is to bring out such a thing will instantly get my business.

   I just don't see this happening. High fidelity almost always means "more
bandwidth", more bandwidth means higher price, and I don't think the
difference, to the AVERAGE person would be worth the extra cost. TTYL
Steve Punter - 21 Oct 2003 20:30 GMT
I'm hoping that there would be enough people WILLING to pay a premium for
quality. I certainly would.
Signature

Steve Punter
http://www.arcx.com/sites

repatch - 21 Oct 2003 20:43 GMT
I for one would definately not, but then I don't yack on a phone enough for
it to matter that much to me. TTYL

> I'm hoping that there would be enough people WILLING to pay a premium for
> quality. I certainly would.
GaryB - 22 Oct 2003 04:19 GMT
Ditto!!  What would it be worth to me?  I don't know - would $3-5 per month
do it?  If so, I'm in!!  I need a bulletproof phone, and if that's the
price, I'd pay it.

GaryB

> I'm hoping that there would be enough people WILLING to pay a premium for
> quality. I certainly would.
DevilsPGD - 22 Oct 2003 10:11 GMT
In message
<<6Pflb.227422$ko%.179559@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>> "Steve
Punter" <punter1445@rogers.com> did ramble:

>I'm hoping that there would be enough people WILLING to pay a premium for
>quality. I certainly would.

I wonder what would be involved in implementing this over existing
networks, and offering it as a service.  Personally, I'd be willing to
pay a little extra per month if that's what it took.

Signature

Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

Steve Punter - 22 Oct 2003 15:38 GMT
>I wonder what would be involved in implementing this
>over existing networks, and offering it as a service.

CDMA is uniquely suited for this sort of thing, since the number of BITS any
given conversation uses is variable. The complicated part would be the
installation of the CODEC in the switch, but that wouldn't be a huge
hardship.

It is unfortunately more complicated for GSM operators, in that the
bandwidth of a slot is fixed, and to give a caller greater bandwidth would
require using two full slots (a doubling of network resources used in each
call). It could be done, but not as economically.
Signature

Steve Punter
http://www.arcx.com/sites

DevilsPGD - 23 Oct 2003 07:54 GMT
In message
<<fDwlb.238188$ko%.2776@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>> "Steve
Punter" <punter1445@rogers.com> did ramble:

>CDMA is uniquely suited for this sort of thing, since the number of BITS any
>given conversation uses is variable. The complicated part would be the
>installation of the CODEC in the switch, but that wouldn't be a huge
>hardship.

Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't the toughest part being installing the
codec in the handsets?

>It is unfortunately more complicated for GSM operators, in that the
>bandwidth of a slot is fixed, and to give a caller greater bandwidth would
>require using two full slots (a doubling of network resources used in each
>call). It could be done, but not as economically.

TDMA based protocols (TDMA, GSM, iDEN) all have this issue, but it still
might be possible to rework the protocol a little, split current slots
into 1/2 the current size, issue a double for "normal" calls and a
triple for higher quality calls.
Signature

Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

Steve Punter - 23 Oct 2003 13:38 GMT
>Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't the toughest part being
>installing the codec in the handsets?

From the provider's standpoint no. By the time any new CODEC was released
for installation on a network there would be at least one or two handsets
already available that used it. As for the subscribers wishing to get the
hifi CODEC, they would of course buy one of those phones.

>TDMA based protocols (TDMA, GSM, iDEN) all have this issue,
>but it still might be possible to rework the protocol a little,
>split current slots into 1/2 the current size, issue a double
>for "normal" calls and a triple for higher quality calls.

Exactly, it can be done, but it would be MORE COMPLICATED.
Signature

Steve Punter
http://www.arcx.com/sites

Car Guy - 22 Oct 2003 00:52 GMT
I think the CODECs are just fine, but they need to refine the process so
that it works according to how it was supposed to as opposed to rushing the
products to market.

> >I am sure Steve Punter will not disagree with this...
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> CODEC, and I really don't care which network technology does it. Whoever the
> first provider is to bring out such a thing will instantly get my business.
Gardner - 23 Oct 2003 02:01 GMT
> I keep hoping that SOMEONE has the good sense to release a HIGH FIDELITY
> CODEC

In a lot of instances the upper bound on call quality is going to be
the 64Kbit u-Law POTS end of the equation.  My experience is that a
EFR GSM CODEC matches that level of quality, where signal quality
permits low enough error rates.

============================================================
Gardner Buchanan                       <gbuchana@rogers.com>
Ottawa, ON             FreeBSD: Where you want to go. Today.
repatch - 21 Oct 2003 18:15 GMT
They should try a G310 on Fido's network before writing a report like
that...

> I am sure Steve Punter will not disagree with this...
>
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
>
> ? BBC MMIII
 
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



©2008 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.