Slashdot Mirror
Comparing Wireless Internet Services
Carl Oppedahl writes "AT&T has released its new "Edge" wireless Internet access service, claiming it is twice as fast (100-130K) as Sprint's "PCS Vision" wireless service (50-70K). I have written up a few comments on my experiences with the services. What data rates are others getting with Edge? I rarely get the advertised faster speeds."
Yeah, I've never been impressed by Vision. I've only used it to send text messages, but it takes a ridiculous amount of time to download the form from their servers, their servers frequently timeout when sending messages, and it seems to automatically log you out after a certain time. It's very frustrating to spend 10 minutes writing an e-mail using a phone's keypad and having the server tell you that you need to log in again (especially since Sprint never told me my account's password).
The phone also seems to go back and forth with Sprint's servers *way* too much. If you believe the little send/recv arrow display, the phone goes back and forth with the servers around 12 times to send a 100 character text message. It even needs to send data for several seconds before closing the browser. Why do you need to talk to a server to close a local application????
I originally switched to Sprint because Verizon was terrible when installing my DSL; they have a monopoly on local service so I figured I'd switch my mobile to give them less money since I actually had a choice for wireless. I'm so going back as soon as my contract is up. I'm tempted to pay the fee and cancel my contract early. That's how much Sprint sucks. (Another irritating example: My phone often fails to ring if it's in my pocket. This is probably due to the phone, but Sprint is the company that sold it to me...)
For the love of God, do NOT use Sprint!!!
I'm paying $8/mo for 1MB of GMRS data transfer. That's barely a few web pages these days. Each extra KILOBYTE is something like EIGHT cents.
Frankly, GMRS is plenty fast enough for me; it's just way, way, WAY too expensive. It's stupid, because the data rates pale in comparison to a voice call, and they're come+go...you'd think much cheaper for them to handle.
Of course, this is all because AT&T and every other provider seems obsessed with cameraphones. I don't know a single person in my office who has a cameraphone, nor a single person that wants one. They're useless toys, but because the wireless companies are fixated on 'em, and they're giving 'em away, they've jacked up the costs on data transfer to the point that anyone trying to actually use the phone for real work can't afford it unless they're a billionaire.
When I talk with friends, they don't say "oh, i want a phone with a camera!" They say things like: a)better reception b)fits in pocket(the camera phones are pretty damn big) c)easy to hold+use d)good battery life(and a battery that will NOT be gone within a year), and so on. Bluetooth is getting up there among my coworkers. Anyone at the phone companies listening?
Please help metamoderate.
You got to read closer. For as long as I can remember monitors always advertised the viewable area and dot pitch. If you buy monitors from Kanka or something than that's your problem.
As for 20GB disks to be fair there is space "wasted" by sector encodings and other data [ecc]. So really you do have 20GB [or more] of data on disk, just not 20GB usable by the FS.
As for the modems, again same thing. Sure it's called 56K but they've put "the 53.3K cap" on the boxes forever now. Why they don't just call them 53K modems? Not as catchy.
In general I do agree that advertising is almost always misleading which leads to the "once burned twice shy" syndrome most people encounter...
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Verizon offers low bandwidth (14.4) service for free. (just ticks away from your plan's minutes). It's suprisingly fast for websites although you don't want to download anything.
You are correct in that the main source of "misrepresentation" is GiB vs GB, but there is still a large amount of space taken up by internal hard disk functions.
There's telemetry data, to tell the heads where they are at any given time, and there also spare sectors for when some live ones go bad. Modern hard disks can tolerate a number of bad sectors without the user ever seeing it, by moving the data that's getting hard to read to these spare sectors.
That's generally the reason why when the user actually sees a bad sector, it's pretty far gone, because if it was just a limited flaw in the media, it could have compensated by using sector sparing.
I don't know exact numbers for all this in modern disks, but 10GB out of 160 doesn't sound unreasonable.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Why not use a booster to ensure the best data rate.? An number of vendors offer a range of fixed directional antennas and repeaters and phone booster antennas.
Unless you are driving in a car or reading email as you walk, "mobile" users are stationary during actual use (a car-top cellphone antenna might be the answer for truly mobile use). For semi-mobile use, a little stand and a Yagi antenna would help improve transmission/reception to the local cell tower. A simple signal strength app would help you point the antenna (for extra credit it could even help you find a tower in an adjacent, less used cell for access to more slots). For boosted use in a hotel room, cafe, or client office, a directional antenna or repeater would be quite useful.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
No. We use a 'k' to denote the SI prefix 'kilo'. For historical and practical reasons, a kilo is either 1000 or 1024, depending on context, although (nonsuccessfull) efforts have been made to try to make people say kibi instead of kilo when they mean 1024.
However, a 'b' designates 'bit's, and a 'B' designates 'byte's. So the distinction is not between 'k' and 'K', but between 'kb', and 'kB'. A large K in this context is always wrong.
Saying 100-130K about network speed is as meaningless as saying you car has a max speed of 180K. What you are probably meaning, is 340kb/s and 180km/h. But most of us understand it even though it's wrong.
The article isnt correct, there was a problem, its fixed now.
For details check Forbes.com Siebel is the largest activations provider in the USA. Dell and others use the same software. The CEO of Siebel is stepping down Jan 1 due to these types of issues.
before plunging into AT&T's more expensive services.
Unlimited Verizon is 199 a month, Unlimited ATTWS is 149. Really, a quick google search will show price plans. Check out Inphonic click check rate plans. Some good information on coverage and prices. Zipcode search will tell which Telco covers your area. Theres a reason most public safety departments go with ATTWS, they need a network thats fast and stable.
Whats funny, is 40% of most customers think thier wireless telco sucks, and switching will resolve the issue. The problem is you might not be with the best telco for your area. Most people will just buy a phone and expect it to work everywhere. Everyone is about 2 years away from total network coverage for telcos, and in 2 years 2mbit+ data speeds will be normal. Now with customers able to switch (After contract is up) the best companies will start to show with better coverage and services. I also expect to see more CDMA/TDMA telcos merge together. (Sprint/Verizon) or (ATTWS/Cingular/Tmobile)
Its only going to get faster, better coverage and more offered services. Edge is the leader now, UMTS will take the market next.