Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How fast should Vision be??

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 12:48:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

I've had my first Vision phone for about 2 weeks now. It's the Sanyo
MM-7400. The phone itself is very nice. The built-in voice
recognition works remarkably well. Two complaints though... First,
the ear speaker sound quality is poor. Secondly, the belt clip that
comes in the Sprint accessory kit from Costco just plain stinks.
Common movements, such as getting into the car, seem to trip the
release lever, leading to phone-meets-concrete syndrome.

Now on to Vision... I've never had a Vision phone before, so I don't
know what to expect as far as communication speeds go. I did have
Wireless Web for many years. Browsing with Vision seems slower than I
expected. Things like checking scores on ESPN or checking email
really don't seem that much faster than with Wireless Web.

I did a file transfer test with #777. First, I downloaded a few files
from my company website via my cable modem connection. The download
speeds were in the 200-300 kBytes/sec range. I then fired up #777 and
got speeds of about 5-6 kBytes/sec. Is this normal, or should I be
getting faster transfer speeds? Just based on things I've read, I was
expecting 10 kBytes/sec or better. Is there any way to check the
actual data transfer speeds without doing a computer file transfer?
Any thoughts as to what the transfer speeds should be for the MM-7400?

Thanks!

Joseph Huber
Huber.Joseph@comcast.net

More about : fast vision

February 3, 2005 1:32:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Joseph Huber wrote:
> I've had my first Vision phone for about 2 weeks now. It's the Sanyo
> MM-7400. The phone itself is very nice. The built-in voice
> recognition works remarkably well. Two complaints though... First,
> the ear speaker sound quality is poor. Secondly, the belt clip that
> comes in the Sprint accessory kit from Costco just plain stinks.
> Common movements, such as getting into the car, seem to trip the
> release lever, leading to phone-meets-concrete syndrome.
>

Been there, had the scratches to show for it. This was using a holster.
I switchd to a generic leather "pouch" style belt, with a Velcro flap,
and all is good. Occasionally it will get hung-up on a seatbelt or
something, but if it falls at least it's protected (and it didn't add
any extra bulk, since my holsters always seemed to be made to accomade
an extended battery, which I never used).


> Now on to Vision... I've never had a Vision phone before, so I don't
> know what to expect as far as communication speeds go. I did have
> Wireless Web for many years. Browsing with Vision seems slower than I
> expected. Things like checking scores on ESPN or checking email
> really don't seem that much faster than with Wireless Web.
>

Vision doesn't "seem that much faster" than WW?! It is to laugh. Yer
lucky you didn't try it when it launched back in the summer of 2002. You
would have seen speeds MUCH slower than the old WW. Be thankful you
waited.


> I did a file transfer test with #777. First, I downloaded a few files
> from my company website via my cable modem connection. The download
> speeds were in the 200-300 kBytes/sec range. I then fired up #777 and
> got speeds of about 5-6 kBytes/sec. Is this normal, or should I be
> getting faster transfer speeds? Just based on things I've read, I was
> expecting 10 kBytes/sec or better. Is there any way to check the
> actual data transfer speeds without doing a computer file transfer?
> Any thoughts as to what the transfer speeds should be for the MM-7400?

A lot of times Vision data is "bursty," so an average DL rate of 50-60
kbps is probably average--and a notch above dialup. And when accessing
the WWW, the traffic is funneled through a compression server, so pages
can be delivered in less time. Still, latency on the connection itself,
as well as the time needed for the server to process the page, do add a
delay before the page is actually displayed.

And keep in mind using #777 with a PC/laptop is against the TOS, so I
wouldn't use it to do extensive bandwidth testing. I use it and have
never had a problem, but I only use it about once or twice per month,
mainly for email.


--
Mike | As the light changed from red to green to yellow
| and back to red again, I sat there thinking about life.
| Was it nothing more than a bunch of honking and
| yelling? Sometimes it seemed that way.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 9:19:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Joseph Huber" <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1j6301p2umbql4qc7t8v2542l7edjh42ce@4ax.com...
> I then fired up #777 and
> got speeds of about 5-6 kBytes/sec. Is this normal, or should I be
> getting faster transfer speeds?

It's a skosh on the slow side, but if you're in an area where you signal
strength is anything but 'four bars' or the particular cell site you're
connecting to is somewhat congested, it's not at all outside of the expected
range.

I guess what I'm saying here is... in all likelihood, there's nothing wrong
with your setup; Vision is working 'as designed.'

---Joel Kolstad
Related resources
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 10:18:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 10:32:53 -0700, "Tinman" wrote:
>Been there, had the scratches to show for it. This was using a holster.
>I switchd to a generic leather "pouch" style belt, with a Velcro flap,
>and all is good. Occasionally it will get hung-up on a seatbelt or
>something, but if it falls at least it's protected (and it didn't add
>any extra bulk, since my holsters always seemed to be made to accomade
>an extended battery, which I never used).

I also bought a pouch and all is better. It seems that the MM-7400 is
thicker than most clamshell phones, so the one I have now is tight.
Eventually there will probably be pouches designed to fit the MM-7400.
I would recommend that anyone planning to get an MM-7400 bypass the
Sprint belt clip and get a pouch. Save yourself the agony of watching
your wonderful new Sanyo bounce off the asphalt.

>And keep in mind using #777 with a PC/laptop is against the TOS, so I
>wouldn't use it to do extensive bandwidth testing. I use it and have
>never had a problem, but I only use it about once or twice per month,
>mainly for email.

Yes, I realize the TOS issue. That's why I was wondering if there are
any speed benchmark sites that could be accessed with the Vision
browser.

Joseph Huber
Huber.Joseph@comcast.net
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 4:06:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Joel Kolstad wrote:
> "Joseph Huber" <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1j6301p2umbql4qc7t8v2542l7edjh42ce@4ax.com...
>
>>I then fired up #777 and
>>got speeds of about 5-6 kBytes/sec. Is this normal, or should I be
>>getting faster transfer speeds?
>
>
> It's a skosh on the slow side, but if you're in an area where you signal
> strength is anything but 'four bars' or the particular cell site you're
> connecting to is somewhat congested, it's not at all outside of the expected
> range.

I'd have to disagree. I've gotten speeds of 90kbps in low-but-useable
signal environments, and typically 110kbps in strong signal areas.


Whaich mobile test was being used? There's one located at:

http://text.dslreports.com/mspeed

This test is specifically designed to work on mobile phones; no laptop
connection is needed. This might also help isolate whether the problem
is the network environment, or the connection between your phone and
computer.




--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 2:20:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:06:56 -0500, Isaiah Beard
<sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
>I'd have to disagree. I've gotten speeds of 90kbps in low-but-useable
>signal environments, and typically 110kbps in strong signal areas.
>There's one located at:
>http://text.dslreports.com/mspeed

For whatever reason, my transfer rates are much higher tonight. The
mspeed test indicated transfer rates for both the phone and
#777/laptop in the 80-120 kbit/sec range. The same PDFs I tried the
other night were downloading tonight in the 10-12 kB/sec range. The
tower must have been busy the other night...

Joseph Huber
Huber.Joseph@comcast.net
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 3:45:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

How does this test work? There are different speeds that can be selected and
there is not help menus.

Regards,

-mij


"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
news:1107ee13uin3i90@corp.supernews.com...
> Joel Kolstad wrote:
>> "Joseph Huber" <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1j6301p2umbql4qc7t8v2542l7edjh42ce@4ax.com...
>>
>>>I then fired up #777 and
>>>got speeds of about 5-6 kBytes/sec. Is this normal, or should I be
>>>getting faster transfer speeds?
>>
>>
>> It's a skosh on the slow side, but if you're in an area where you signal
>> strength is anything but 'four bars' or the particular cell site you're
>> connecting to is somewhat congested, it's not at all outside of the
>> expected range.
>
> I'd have to disagree. I've gotten speeds of 90kbps in low-but-useable
> signal environments, and typically 110kbps in strong signal areas.
>
>
> Whaich mobile test was being used? There's one located at:
>
> http://text.dslreports.com/mspeed
>
> This test is specifically designed to work on mobile phones; no laptop
> connection is needed. This might also help isolate whether the problem is
> the network environment, or the connection between your phone and
> computer.
>
>
>
>
> --
> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 3:54:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

It seems that I am getting 334 kbit/sec using the >
http://text.dslreports.com/mspeed and selecting the 200k test option.

Is this good?

"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
news:1107ee13uin3i90@corp.supernews.com...
> Joel Kolstad wrote:
>> "Joseph Huber" <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1j6301p2umbql4qc7t8v2542l7edjh42ce@4ax.com...
>>
>>>I then fired up #777 and
>>>got speeds of about 5-6 kBytes/sec. Is this normal, or should I be
>>>getting faster transfer speeds?
>>
>>
>> It's a skosh on the slow side, but if you're in an area where you signal
>> strength is anything but 'four bars' or the particular cell site you're
>> connecting to is somewhat congested, it's not at all outside of the
>> expected range.
>
> I'd have to disagree. I've gotten speeds of 90kbps in low-but-useable
> signal environments, and typically 110kbps in strong signal areas.
>
>
> Whaich mobile test was being used? There's one located at:
>
> http://text.dslreports.com/mspeed
>
> This test is specifically designed to work on mobile phones; no laptop
> connection is needed. This might also help isolate whether the problem is
> the network environment, or the connection between your phone and
> computer.
>
>
>
>
> --
> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 7:40:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

That's a lot higher than I thought was possible on Vision. I get more
like 70kbps on the 200k byte test. I regularly am able to get 90-100k
when downloading a large (multi-megabyte) file to my Treo.

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> It seems that I am getting 334 kbit/sec using the >
> http://text.dslreports.com/mspeed and selecting the 200k test option.
>
> Is this good?
>
> "Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
> news:1107ee13uin3i90@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Joel Kolstad wrote:
>>
>>>"Joseph Huber" <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1j6301p2umbql4qc7t8v2542l7edjh42ce@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I then fired up #777 and
>>>>got speeds of about 5-6 kBytes/sec. Is this normal, or should I be
>>>>getting faster transfer speeds?
>>>
>>>
>>>It's a skosh on the slow side, but if you're in an area where you signal
>>>strength is anything but 'four bars' or the particular cell site you're
>>>connecting to is somewhat congested, it's not at all outside of the
>>>expected range.
>>
>>I'd have to disagree. I've gotten speeds of 90kbps in low-but-useable
>>signal environments, and typically 110kbps in strong signal areas.
>>
>>
>>Whaich mobile test was being used? There's one located at:
>>
>>http://text.dslreports.com/mspeed
>>
>>This test is specifically designed to work on mobile phones; no laptop
>>connection is needed. This might also help isolate whether the problem is
>>the network environment, or the connection between your phone and
>>computer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
>>Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 7:40:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Maybe Sprint is using higher speed equipment in the area that I am located.

"rlsusenet@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org" <NoSuchPerson@bigfoot.com> wrote in
message news:o LrNd.7479$e11.6713@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> That's a lot higher than I thought was possible on Vision. I get more
> like 70kbps on the 200k byte test. I regularly am able to get 90-100k
> when downloading a large (multi-megabyte) file to my Treo.
>
> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>> It seems that I am getting 334 kbit/sec using the >
>> http://text.dslreports.com/mspeed and selecting the 200k test option.
>>
>> Is this good?
>>
>> "Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
>> news:1107ee13uin3i90@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>Joel Kolstad wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Joseph Huber" <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:1j6301p2umbql4qc7t8v2542l7edjh42ce@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I then fired up #777 and
>>>>>got speeds of about 5-6 kBytes/sec. Is this normal, or should I be
>>>>>getting faster transfer speeds?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's a skosh on the slow side, but if you're in an area where you signal
>>>>strength is anything but 'four bars' or the particular cell site you're
>>>>connecting to is somewhat congested, it's not at all outside of the
>>>>expected range.
>>>
>>>I'd have to disagree. I've gotten speeds of 90kbps in low-but-useable
>>>signal environments, and typically 110kbps in strong signal areas.
>>>
>>>
>>>Whaich mobile test was being used? There's one located at:
>>>
>>>http://text.dslreports.com/mspeed
>>>
>>>This test is specifically designed to work on mobile phones; no laptop
>>>connection is needed. This might also help isolate whether the problem
>>>is the network environment, or the connection between your phone and
>>>computer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
>>>Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
>>
>>
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 7:40:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

I am getting 346 kbit/sec this morning here in Laguna Niguel CA.

1.562s latency and 6.184s d/l time.

This seems to be really good :-)

SprintPCS RULES!

-mij


"Mij Adyaw" <mijadyaw@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
news:rLsNd.43568$bu.36592@fed1read06...
> Maybe Sprint is using higher speed equipment in the area that I am
> located.
>
> "rlsusenet@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org" <NoSuchPerson@bigfoot.com> wrote in
> message news:o LrNd.7479$e11.6713@twister.socal.rr.com...
>>
>> That's a lot higher than I thought was possible on Vision. I get more
>> like 70kbps on the 200k byte test. I regularly am able to get 90-100k
>> when downloading a large (multi-megabyte) file to my Treo.
>>
>> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>>> It seems that I am getting 334 kbit/sec using the >
>>> http://text.dslreports.com/mspeed and selecting the 200k test option.
>>>
>>> Is this good?
>>>
>>> "Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1107ee13uin3i90@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>>Joel Kolstad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Joseph Huber" <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:1j6301p2umbql4qc7t8v2542l7edjh42ce@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I then fired up #777 and
>>>>>>got speeds of about 5-6 kBytes/sec. Is this normal, or should I be
>>>>>>getting faster transfer speeds?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a skosh on the slow side, but if you're in an area where you
>>>>>signal strength is anything but 'four bars' or the particular cell site
>>>>>you're connecting to is somewhat congested, it's not at all outside of
>>>>>the expected range.
>>>>
>>>>I'd have to disagree. I've gotten speeds of 90kbps in low-but-useable
>>>>signal environments, and typically 110kbps in strong signal areas.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Whaich mobile test was being used? There's one located at:
>>>>
>>>>http://text.dslreports.com/mspeed
>>>>
>>>>This test is specifically designed to work on mobile phones; no laptop
>>>>connection is needed. This might also help isolate whether the problem
>>>>is the network environment, or the connection between your phone and
>>>>computer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
>>>>Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
>>>
>>>
>
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 7:40:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 09:48:07 -0800, "Mij Adyaw"
<mijadyaw@nospamforme.com> wrote:

>Maybe Sprint is using higher speed equipment in the area that I am located.

No, they use the same equipment everywhere. :-)


>
>"rlsusenet@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org" <NoSuchPerson@bigfoot.com> wrote in
>message news:o LrNd.7479$e11.6713@twister.socal.rr.com...
>>
>> That's a lot higher than I thought was possible on Vision. I get more
>> like 70kbps on the 200k byte test. I regularly am able to get 90-100k
>> when downloading a large (multi-megabyte) file to my Treo.
>>
>> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>>> It seems that I am getting 334 kbit/sec using the >
>>> http://text.dslreports.com/mspeed and selecting the 200k test option.
>>>
>>> Is this good?
>>>
>>> "Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1107ee13uin3i90@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>>Joel Kolstad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Joseph Huber" <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:1j6301p2umbql4qc7t8v2542l7edjh42ce@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I then fired up #777 and
>>>>>>got speeds of about 5-6 kBytes/sec. Is this normal, or should I be
>>>>>>getting faster transfer speeds?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a skosh on the slow side, but if you're in an area where you signal
>>>>>strength is anything but 'four bars' or the particular cell site you're
>>>>>connecting to is somewhat congested, it's not at all outside of the
>>>>>expected range.
>>>>
>>>>I'd have to disagree. I've gotten speeds of 90kbps in low-but-useable
>>>>signal environments, and typically 110kbps in strong signal areas.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Whaich mobile test was being used? There's one located at:
>>>>
>>>>http://text.dslreports.com/mspeed
>>>>
>>>>This test is specifically designed to work on mobile phones; no laptop
>>>>connection is needed. This might also help isolate whether the problem
>>>>is the network environment, or the connection between your phone and
>>>>computer.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 12:37:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Looks like your bandwidth question was answered. As for the Costco
holster -- I have the same and it IS terrible with the standard battery but
works great with an extended one. The lip on the extended battery fits
nicely against the moulded shape of the holster. With the standard battery,
if you pushed the phone toward the belt the clip could bend and disengage.
With the extended battery the back of the battery is solid against the
holster and the clip won't bend.

I picked up several extended batteries on eBay for about $10 each. They're
"counterfit" (or maybe not since they don't pretend to be from Sprint or
Sanyo) batteries the carriers warn us about so they can sell us the same
cells and electronics for $60. Never had a problem.


"Joseph Huber" <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1j6301p2umbql4qc7t8v2542l7edjh42ce@4ax.com...
> I've had my first Vision phone for about 2 weeks now. It's the Sanyo
> MM-7400. The phone itself is very nice. The built-in voice
> recognition works remarkably well. Two complaints though... First,
> the ear speaker sound quality is poor. Secondly, the belt clip that
> comes in the Sprint accessory kit from Costco just plain stinks.
> Common movements, such as getting into the car, seem to trip the
> release lever, leading to phone-meets-concrete syndrome.
>
> Now on to Vision... I've never had a Vision phone before, so I don't
> know what to expect as far as communication speeds go. I did have
> Wireless Web for many years. Browsing with Vision seems slower than I
> expected. Things like checking scores on ESPN or checking email
> really don't seem that much faster than with Wireless Web.
>
> I did a file transfer test with #777. First, I downloaded a few files
> from my company website via my cable modem connection. The download
> speeds were in the 200-300 kBytes/sec range. I then fired up #777 and
> got speeds of about 5-6 kBytes/sec. Is this normal, or should I be
> getting faster transfer speeds? Just based on things I've read, I was
> expecting 10 kBytes/sec or better. Is there any way to check the
> actual data transfer speeds without doing a computer file transfer?
> Any thoughts as to what the transfer speeds should be for the MM-7400?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Joseph Huber
> Huber.Joseph@comcast.net
>
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 11:30:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

> "Joseph Huber" <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in message

> I did a file transfer test with #777. First, I downloaded a few files
> from my company website via my cable modem connection. The download
> speeds were in the 200-300 kBytes/sec range. I then fired up #777 and
> got speeds of about 5-6 kBytes/sec. Is this normal, or should I be
> getting faster transfer speeds? Just based on things I've read, I was
> expecting 10 kBytes/sec or better. Is there any way to check the
> actual data transfer speeds without doing a computer file transfer?
> Any thoughts as to what the transfer speeds should be for the MM-7400?


I did a speed test online and took a screenshot of my results.

http://www.andypop.com/temp/vision-results.jpg

better than the average 56k modem, and that's fine for the occasional
email I send via a Vision connection.

/tommy
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 1:59:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <rV5Od.4$0b3.2225@news.uswest.net>, JackF
<jack@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "Joseph Huber" <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1j6301p2umbql4qc7t8v2542l7edjh42ce@4ax.com...

> > Now on to Vision...
> > ... Things like checking scores on ESPN or checking email
> > really don't seem that much faster than with Wireless Web.
> >
> > I then fired up #777 and
> > got speeds of about 5-6 kBytes/sec. Is this normal, or should I be
> > getting faster transfer speeds? Just based on things I've read, I was
> > expecting 10 kBytes/sec or better.
> > Joseph Huber
> > Huber.Joseph@comcast.net

> Looks like your bandwidth question was answered....

Joseph, JackF is right...

Your 5-6kBytes/sec is about 60kbps which is about what I get. The
service is "up to 144kbps" and we're getting about half that.

From another tip on this newsgroup, the latency is not too bad if you
keep sending bits one way or the other. But, let it go quiet and then
there's a longer pause (a second or so) to get started again.

I use #777 for occasional email when I don't have a better option.
Sprint now says #777 is against their terms of service, but from
comments here they are not bothering people who do not abuse this
feature. For example, keeping a connection alive all day under
"Unlimited Vision" would be abuse.

-- Sally

--
Sally Shears (a.k.a. "Molly")
SallyShears@gmail.com -or- Sally@Shears.org
http://theWorld.com/~sshears
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 1:59:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Sally Shears wrote:
> 5-6kBytes/sec is about 60kbps which is about what I get. The
> service is "up to 144kbps" and we're getting about half that.

Sprint VM4500 (Sanyo 5500). Using the text.dslreports.com/mspeed
site, I have measured wildly different results. Same phone,
same location (home, very close to a tower), different times
and days. Results have varied from 17 kbps to 305 kbps.
Is that much difference expected?

Latency is virtually always around 2 seconds. That's not just
huge, it's astronomical. dslreports says that for ethernet
it's around 0.3 ms. Old fashioned modems are around 100 ms.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 1:59:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

I consistently get 300-400 Kbits per second.
"ll" <lkslittle@REMOVEcomcastTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:420A4D16.AC3D18D4@REMOVEcomcastTHIS.net...
> Sally Shears wrote:
>> 5-6kBytes/sec is about 60kbps which is about what I get. The
>> service is "up to 144kbps" and we're getting about half that.
>
> Sprint VM4500 (Sanyo 5500). Using the text.dslreports.com/mspeed
> site, I have measured wildly different results. Same phone,
> same location (home, very close to a tower), different times
> and days. Results have varied from 17 kbps to 305 kbps.
> Is that much difference expected?
>
> Latency is virtually always around 2 seconds. That's not just
> huge, it's astronomical. dslreports says that for ethernet
> it's around 0.3 ms. Old fashioned modems are around 100 ms.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 1:24:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

> Now on to Vision... I've never had a Vision phone before, so I don't
> know what to expect as far as communication speeds go.

Cellular transmission speeds are nearly as controversial as politics.

First, in your post, you used 'kiloBytes' as the measure. My experience with
cellular is they talk in terms of kilo-bits.

Unless Sprint has changed >base< transmission speeds in the last six months,
they transmit at 144Kb (bits). It's my understanding voice packets get
preference over data, so under loading of peak voice periods, data rates
will slow. Don't expect the same rate at 8am and 5 pm as 3 am. I see 5pm
speeds fall to as little as 29Kbs as people call home for the grocery list.

The CEO of Qualcomm gave a presentation a Sprint conference in June 2003. He
stated that there is hardware compression applied during transmission. At
that point in time, my Hitachi G1000 averaged about 108Kb/sec.

Customers of mine that have bought Connection Cards report varying rates but
about the same that I get with a Connection Card and G1000. If I am sitting
still with 3 bars of strength, my G1000 in a non-peak period, will sustain
~308Kbs.

When traveling, the quality of the signal and hand-off between towers causes
degradation. Clients report to me an average of 208Kbs while traveling
80mph. I report to them, don't drive and transmit. One client drove Dallas
to Carmel, CA to Oshkosh to Dallas. Not only was he able to sustain 208Kbs
but could manipulate his servers via VPN.

In about August and September of last year, a tech support person told me
two improvements were made. On PDAs, a layer of software for transmission
was removed and a more efficient hardware algorithm was provided. To take
advantage of both in a connection card, most of the cards have to be
'reflashed'. I successfully did that on my notebook with a cable modem link.
Some have had to take their card to a Sprint technical support center.

Since the upgrade, during non- peak periods, I frequently receive at 408Kbs
via http://www.texan.net/speed.htm.

One other item I have noticed; devices with vertical external antennas
normally have an extra bar of signal strength. An inventor working in
Washington State has received patents for metal in plastic designs so the
whole case is an antenna. Until those are available I would not buy a
cellular device without an external antenna. Since the broadcast antennas
are vertical, best reception is while the handset/Connection Card is
vertical.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 5:46:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Thurman wrote:
>>Now on to Vision... I've never had a Vision phone before, so I don't
>>know what to expect as far as communication speeds go.
>
>
> Cellular transmission speeds are nearly as controversial as politics.
>
> First, in your post, you used 'kiloBytes' as the measure. My experience with
> cellular is they talk in terms of kilo-bits.

In general, Internet transfer speeds ARE in kilobits, regardless of whether
it's wireless Internet or not.


--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 8:08:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:46:58 -0800, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>> First, in your post, you used 'kiloBytes' as the measure. My experience with
>> cellular is they talk in terms of kilo-bits.
>
>In general, Internet transfer speeds ARE in kilobits, regardless of whether
>it's wireless Internet or not.

Internet Explorer (as well as every FTP program that I've used to this
point) report file transer speed in kBytes/sec, or Bytes/sec. Since I
used IE to download the test files, I reported the transfer speeds in
kBytes/sec, which is how IE reported them to me.

Joseph Huber
Huber.Joseph@comcast.net
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 8:51:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:cum0u5$893$1@ratbert.glorb.com...
> In general, Internet transfer speeds ARE in kilobits, regardless of
> whether it's wireless Internet or not.

I totally agree with you but this is the 2nd time in my 43 years in the
computer/communications business that computers and telephones have merged;
each with their own vernacular.

The Sprint CEO casually uses the term 'POP' as a normal part of his
think/speak.

I was stunned when he said they had 24 millions POPs, so I questioned it.

A POP to me was a local 'point of presence' for a dialup ISP/ASP connection.
In Sprint world, it's each one of those little send/receive antennas.

I wasn't trying to correct you, just make sure we synched for an answer.
February 14, 2005 8:30:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

I think you will find that the technology used by Sprint for their
Vision service will allow maximum data rates of 153.6kbps. As pointed
out kbps stands for kilo bits per second. 144kbps tends to be a speed
only used by Marketing/Advertising teams.

Requests by a device to make a voice call will be treated as a higher
priority than a request from another device to make a data call, if
these requests arrive at the base station (cell tower) at the some time.
The base rate for a data call is 9k6bps. A data session will request
more bandwidth (radio resources if available). Data rate steps are; 9k6,
19k2, 38k4, 76k8 and 153k6bps. These steps are assigned based on buffer
fill rate at either mobile device or base station.

During a busy period data rates slow because either there are lots of
voice calls on a cell site or there are other data users competing for
the "bandwidth that is left".

The easiest way to explain this is to imagine that there is a fixed
maximum bandwidth per cell site. Lets say 400kbps. Lets imagine that
each voice call takes up 10kbps and each base rate data session also
takes up 10kbps. Our imaginary cell site can have up to 40 instantaneous
calls, a mixture of voice and data, for this example we'll say we have
10 data sessions and 10 voice sessions. This will mean that the voice
sessions take up 100kbps leaving 300kbps for the data sessions to share.
If another voice call comes along then the data sessions will only have
290kbps to share, and then another voice call will leave only
280kbps,... until there are 30 voice calls and 10 calls which makes the
cell site full.

Yes this is a simple explanation and for those cellular engineers out
there I have ignored a number of important issues such as Dormancy, and
power control.

The only way to achieve data rates of more than 153.6kbps is to
implement compression technologies. Compression technologies do not
actually increase the data rate. What they do is send less data. If you
send a binary file over a data link that has compression technologies
enabled you will not see any difference in the data rate. This is
because binary files cannot be compressed. Once of the tricks that
compression technologies use is to change the resolution of images so
that it looks like your 200Kbyte image is arriving faster where in fact
your image may have been reduced to 20kbytes.

Neal


Thurman wrote:
>>Now on to Vision... I've never had a Vision phone before, so I don't
>>know what to expect as far as communication speeds go.
>
>
> Cellular transmission speeds are nearly as controversial as politics.
>
> First, in your post, you used 'kiloBytes' as the measure. My experience with
> cellular is they talk in terms of kilo-bits.
>
> Unless Sprint has changed >base< transmission speeds in the last six months,
> they transmit at 144Kb (bits). It's my understanding voice packets get
> preference over data, so under loading of peak voice periods, data rates
> will slow. Don't expect the same rate at 8am and 5 pm as 3 am. I see 5pm
> speeds fall to as little as 29Kbs as people call home for the grocery list.
>
> The CEO of Qualcomm gave a presentation a Sprint conference in June 2003. He
> stated that there is hardware compression applied during transmission. At
> that point in time, my Hitachi G1000 averaged about 108Kb/sec.
>
> Customers of mine that have bought Connection Cards report varying rates but
> about the same that I get with a Connection Card and G1000. If I am sitting
> still with 3 bars of strength, my G1000 in a non-peak period, will sustain
> ~308Kbs.
>
> When traveling, the quality of the signal and hand-off between towers causes
> degradation. Clients report to me an average of 208Kbs while traveling
> 80mph. I report to them, don't drive and transmit. One client drove Dallas
> to Carmel, CA to Oshkosh to Dallas. Not only was he able to sustain 208Kbs
> but could manipulate his servers via VPN.
>
> In about August and September of last year, a tech support person told me
> two improvements were made. On PDAs, a layer of software for transmission
> was removed and a more efficient hardware algorithm was provided. To take
> advantage of both in a connection card, most of the cards have to be
> 'reflashed'. I successfully did that on my notebook with a cable modem link.
> Some have had to take their card to a Sprint technical support center.
>
> Since the upgrade, during non- peak periods, I frequently receive at 408Kbs
> via http://www.texan.net/speed.htm.
>
> One other item I have noticed; devices with vertical external antennas
> normally have an extra bar of signal strength. An inventor working in
> Washington State has received patents for metal in plastic designs so the
> whole case is an antenna. Until those are available I would not buy a
> cellular device without an external antenna. Since the broadcast antennas
> are vertical, best reception is while the handset/Connection Card is
> vertical.
>
>
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 8:30:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

If speed of vision is limited, why do I routinely achieve 350 kbps using the
speed test at http://text.dslreports.com/mspeed

"Neal" <nealcdma3@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:VQVPd.1307$1S4.121580@news.xtra.co.nz...
>I think you will find that the technology used by Sprint for their Vision
>service will allow maximum data rates of 153.6kbps. As pointed out kbps
>stands for kilo bits per second. 144kbps tends to be a speed only used by
>Marketing/Advertising teams.
>
> Requests by a device to make a voice call will be treated as a higher
> priority than a request from another device to make a data call, if these
> requests arrive at the base station (cell tower) at the some time. The
> base rate for a data call is 9k6bps. A data session will request more
> bandwidth (radio resources if available). Data rate steps are; 9k6, 19k2,
> 38k4, 76k8 and 153k6bps. These steps are assigned based on buffer fill
> rate at either mobile device or base station.
>
> During a busy period data rates slow because either there are lots of
> voice calls on a cell site or there are other data users competing for the
> "bandwidth that is left".
>
> The easiest way to explain this is to imagine that there is a fixed
> maximum bandwidth per cell site. Lets say 400kbps. Lets imagine that each
> voice call takes up 10kbps and each base rate data session also takes up
> 10kbps. Our imaginary cell site can have up to 40 instantaneous calls, a
> mixture of voice and data, for this example we'll say we have 10 data
> sessions and 10 voice sessions. This will mean that the voice sessions
> take up 100kbps leaving 300kbps for the data sessions to share. If another
> voice call comes along then the data sessions will only have 290kbps to
> share, and then another voice call will leave only 280kbps,... until there
> are 30 voice calls and 10 calls which makes the cell site full.
>
> Yes this is a simple explanation and for those cellular engineers out
> there I have ignored a number of important issues such as Dormancy, and
> power control.
>
> The only way to achieve data rates of more than 153.6kbps is to implement
> compression technologies. Compression technologies do not actually
> increase the data rate. What they do is send less data. If you send a
> binary file over a data link that has compression technologies enabled you
> will not see any difference in the data rate. This is because binary files
> cannot be compressed. Once of the tricks that compression technologies use
> is to change the resolution of images so that it looks like your 200Kbyte
> image is arriving faster where in fact your image may have been reduced to
> 20kbytes.
>
> Neal
>
>
> Thurman wrote:
>>>Now on to Vision... I've never had a Vision phone before, so I don't
>>>know what to expect as far as communication speeds go.
>>
>>
>> Cellular transmission speeds are nearly as controversial as politics.
>>
>> First, in your post, you used 'kiloBytes' as the measure. My experience
>> with cellular is they talk in terms of kilo-bits.
>>
>> Unless Sprint has changed >base< transmission speeds in the last six
>> months, they transmit at 144Kb (bits). It's my understanding voice
>> packets get preference over data, so under loading of peak voice periods,
>> data rates will slow. Don't expect the same rate at 8am and 5 pm as 3 am.
>> I see 5pm speeds fall to as little as 29Kbs as people call home for the
>> grocery list.
>>
>> The CEO of Qualcomm gave a presentation a Sprint conference in June 2003.
>> He stated that there is hardware compression applied during transmission.
>> At that point in time, my Hitachi G1000 averaged about 108Kb/sec.
>>
>> Customers of mine that have bought Connection Cards report varying rates
>> but about the same that I get with a Connection Card and G1000. If I am
>> sitting still with 3 bars of strength, my G1000 in a non-peak period,
>> will sustain ~308Kbs.
>>
>> When traveling, the quality of the signal and hand-off between towers
>> causes degradation. Clients report to me an average of 208Kbs while
>> traveling 80mph. I report to them, don't drive and transmit. One client
>> drove Dallas to Carmel, CA to Oshkosh to Dallas. Not only was he able to
>> sustain 208Kbs but could manipulate his servers via VPN.
>>
>> In about August and September of last year, a tech support person told me
>> two improvements were made. On PDAs, a layer of software for transmission
>> was removed and a more efficient hardware algorithm was provided. To take
>> advantage of both in a connection card, most of the cards have to be
>> 'reflashed'. I successfully did that on my notebook with a cable modem
>> link. Some have had to take their card to a Sprint technical support
>> center.
>>
>> Since the upgrade, during non- peak periods, I frequently receive at
>> 408Kbs via http://www.texan.net/speed.htm.
>>
>> One other item I have noticed; devices with vertical external antennas
>> normally have an extra bar of signal strength. An inventor working in
>> Washington State has received patents for metal in plastic designs so the
>> whole case is an antenna. Until those are available I would not buy a
>> cellular device without an external antenna. Since the broadcast antennas
>> are vertical, best reception is while the handset/Connection Card is
>> vertical.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 8:30:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:43:55 -0800, "Mij Adyaw"
<mijadyaw@nospamforme.com> wrote:

>If speed of vision is limited, why do I routinely achieve 350 kbps using the
>speed test at http://text.dslreports.com/mspeed

Compression? What I think you're seeing is the difference between raw
data rate and perceived data rate.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 3:00:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Sally Shears wrote:

> In article <rV5Od.4$0b3.2225@news.uswest.net>, JackF
> <jack@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Joseph Huber" <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1j6301p2umbql4qc7t8v2542l7edjh42ce@4ax.com...
>
>> > Now on to Vision...
>> > ... Things like checking scores on ESPN or checking email
>> > really don't seem that much faster than with Wireless Web.
>> >
>> > I then fired up #777 and
>> > got speeds of about 5-6 kBytes/sec. Is this normal, or should I be
>> > getting faster transfer speeds? Just based on things I've read, I was
>> > expecting 10 kBytes/sec or better.
>> > Joseph Huber
>> > Huber.Joseph@comcast.net
>
>> Looks like your bandwidth question was answered....
>
> Joseph, JackF is right...
>
> Your 5-6kBytes/sec is about 60kbps which is about what I get. The
> service is "up to 144kbps" and we're getting about half that.
>
> From another tip on this newsgroup, the latency is not too bad if you
> keep sending bits one way or the other. But, let it go quiet and then
> there's a longer pause (a second or so) to get started again.
>
> I use #777 for occasional email when I don't have a better option.
> Sprint now says #777 is against their terms of service, but from
> comments here they are not bothering people who do not abuse this
> feature. For example, keeping a connection alive all day under
> "Unlimited Vision" would be abuse.
>
> -- Sally
>
Not necessarily. The network has a feature that makes your connection go
dormant after a few seconds. The extra latency is the delay of waking it
back up. As far as being connected all the time, this is not abuse since
now ndis drivers are offered that make it act like a network connection and
is always on as long as the computer is on. I had Spcs for a year with a
Merlin and without a dormant state, my latency was between 299 and 700
milliseconds, not good! The real abusers are running servers on the network
and so forth.
--
Dave
!