Useless to quote theoretical max peak download speed and conclude that you are ahead.
I wasn't referring to theoretical peaks in my last post, although I should note that you started it with the theoretical max. business - not to mention the vapour-stats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
By the end of the year, 1/3 of US will have Verizon's LTE with 5-12 mbps average speed and 50 mbps peak.
And Telstra's is in place at 42Mbps already. And then it won't be much longer before it is improved once more.
Quote:
A very small number of Americans do use a lot of data --- and these small minority disrupts the network for the vast majority of the people who use data at reasonable amount.
So you admit the infrastructure at the moment is insufficient for the demands placed upon it? There are high-end users everywhere, you realise. But of course you will retort that North Americans must be the highest of high-end users...
Quote:
People only have their iphones for a few hours --- too early to say that there is no problem down under.
Maybe you should check your totem because it sounds like you're the one who's not awake.
PS: It's expected AT&T will have 14.4Mbps HSPA+ by the end of the year.
Nope, after 3 years of reading the silly carry on from the USA I'd have to say I'm on the money. AT&T started 7.2 roll out last year with the 3GS, we already had it blanket with 14mbit strongly established. We had a 3G network 4years before the original iPhone.
America sees it's savior as Verizon where you can't use net and voice at the same time operating on a piddly data rate.
I've read USA news medi a blaming Apple for 3G thinking they invented it. I've read the comic adventures of people coming off dumb phones and crying about battery life, cause they have no idea.
Why have there been no reports from Europe and Australia of dropped calls, poor reception and death grips? Because we have well established cellular networks.
What gets me the most is how the Americans aren't proud of AT&T. these poor sods have had to roll out an entire network while getting pounded in the media and via data.
It's ridiculous and you all hope LTE will save the day when you still don't even have the current generation figured out.
Wake up, it's not the phone. The iPhone4 has been recommended for regional and remote use in Oz. I've used the 3GS extensively in the most remote places you can imagine.
It's a awesome phone when on an awesome network.
Don't worry the USA is streets ahead on landline performance. It's just that Australia due to size and small population has really cranked cellular.
And as another Aussie mentioned we are already at initial LTE speeds with 42mbit HSPDA.
The iPhone4 even with twice upload speed doesn't even test the Australian cell network. It's only 7.2mbit.
Next the Americans will be arguing not many people have such devices in Australia. When the opposite is true. Smartphones have huge uptake in Australia and the iPhone has more than 40% of the market.
Speed and signal strength are two different things.
Speeds are often capped down here in order to provide reliable service. I know that's what Vodafone New Zealand do so don't take Wired's word for it.
More often than not the slower speeds work out on average faster because there will be fewer bottle necks. Remember the explanation Apple gave why PPC was faster than Intel despite having slower clock speeds? Same deal with slower but more reliable 3G speeds.
Yeah I'm on a 3GS in Wellington , NZ. I had a spate of dropped calls a while back. But, to give Vodafone their dues they fixed the problem with a bit of feedback. Turns out that it was a repeater problem. If no one rings them about it, nothing gets fixed. The techs were very good.
Now the Off Shore based call centre on the other hand are a completely different story. What a disaster!
You forget the reason behind those dropped calls. I work in Wellington as well and suffered the same issues but it was revealed that it was because of Telecom's XT Network not being filtered and interfering with Vodafone's network.
That article is from iPhone launch in 2008. Most people picked Optus who offered a very cheap plan. And back then, Optus also throttled iPhone speed which they don't any more, to reduce network congestion.
This is my iPhone 4 on Telstra. Faster than existing 4G networks. Entirely 850mhz HSPA network at 21mbir. World's best 3G network that is almost always in 5 bars range. Infact the bottleneck here is the iPhone 4.
People on Optus and Vodafone though in Australia, those carriers are about as bad as AT&T, you'd think you should see similar death grip results on them
Quote:
By the end of the year, 1/3 of US will have Verizon's LTE with 5-12 mbps average speed and 50 mbps peak.
Telstra is already managing those average speeds on 3G.
Quote:
Telstra also give you very few data allowance per month.
You can get the iPhone 4 for around $70 a month with 3GB cap on Telstra, if you don't select the default data plan. Comparable to AT&T.
Quote:
But that's population density and lack of competition as well. I am a Canadian --- 3 national carriers (until very very recently), each sharing massive amount of spectrum, and each carrier serving "smallish" cities.
NYC has something like 20 million people and San Francisco has a very hilly geography --- not that hard to understand carriers facing difficulties
Sydney ain't no small city. Has a larger downtown than San Francisco. And Telstra gets around 2-4 mbit in the downtown, the network is a bit more congested there.
Vodafone is no slouch as far as iPhones and iPads go in metro areas they are also bottlenecked by the devices.
Don't forget Vodafone rolled out the first HSDPA network in Australia, just before telstra rolled out Next G.
P.S.
GOWALLABIES
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morn
That article is from iPhone launch in 2008. Most people picked Optus who offered a very cheap plan. And back then, Optus also throttled iPhone speed which they don't any more, to reduce network congestion.
This is my iPhone 4 on Telstra. Faster than existing 4G networks. Entirely 850mhz HSPA network at 21mbir. World's best 3G network that is almost always in 5 bars range. Infact the bottleneck here is the iPhone 4.
People on Optus and Vodafone though in Australia, those carriers are about as bad as AT&T, you'd think you should see similar death grip results on them
Telstra is already managing those average speeds on 3G.
You can get the iPhone 4 for around $70 a month with 3GB cap on Telstra, if you don't select the default data plan. Comparable to AT&T.
Sydney ain't no small city. Has a larger downtown than San Francisco. And Telstra gets around 2-4 mbit in the downtown, the network is a bit more congested there.
You forget the reason behind those dropped calls. I work in Wellington as well and suffered the same issues but it was revealed that it was because of Telecom's XT Network not being filtered and interfering with Vodafone's network.
Good to see another Wellingtonian! :-)
Nah it wasn't that spate of dropped calls. It was another one, just in my local area on my local tower. I didn't get any problems anywhere else on my iPhone or BB.
What difference does it make? That is the free enterprise system. Would you rather have the federal government provide your cell service? It would all be compatible probably mediocre with no incentive to improve. Sort of like our public education system.
This is a false dichotomy, combined with an artificial scenario and a false analogy, all based on an incorrect understanding of "free enterprise" and its benefits and drawbacks. I don't really understand why "free enterprise" enthusiasts feel the need to make these sort of doomsday arguments to support their positions. Sure, total government control of everything isn't a good thing. But unbridled "free enterprise" is at least equally evil. Clearly, the proper course lies somewhere between the extremes. Yes, as always, the devil is in the details, but while people insist on these emotional arguments based on distortion and fear, we make no real progress in any direction.
This is a false dichotomy, combined with an artificial scenario and a false analogy, all based on an incorrect understanding of "free enterprise" and its benefits and drawbacks. I don't really understand why "free enterprise" enthusiasts feel the need to make these sort of doomsday arguments to support their positions. Sure, total government control of everything isn't a good thing. But unbridled "free enterprise" is at least equally evil. Clearly, the proper course lies somewhere between the extremes. Yes, as always, the devil is in the details, but while people insist on these emotional arguments based on distortion and fear, we make no real progress in any direction.
Holy cow... you've posted something we can agree on.
[Faints dead away and has to be revived with a cold glass of superb NZ sauvignon blanc]
What difference does it make? That is the free enterprise system. Would you rather have the federal government provide your cell service? It would all be compatible probably mediocre with no incentive to improve. Sort of like our public education system.
I don't believe that at all.
New Zealand used to have the telecommunications infrastructure as a State Owned Asset and we had the best telecommunications system in the world at the time. The reason was simple... we worked with telecommunications companies as a testbed for their products.
I guess it was easy for New Zealand to do this because we were the perfect nation to do it. We had enough population to give reliable results but we were small enough to roll back if things went wrong.
Once Telecom got sold off and went private our once awesome system became a third world joke and it's only now with more competition that we are starting to get back on track.
Privatisation DOES NOT mean better systems. Everything you said would happen if the Federal Government ran the telecommunications happened in New Zealand BECAUSE of privatisation.
In reality socialism works for the people not for the few people with tonnes of money. Unfortunately New Zealand stopped being socialist in the late 80's and the country has been poorer for it.
And Telstra's is in place at 42Mbps already. And then it won't be much longer before it is improved once more.
So you admit the infrastructure at the moment is insufficient for the demands placed upon it? There are high-end users everywhere, you realise. But of course you will retort that North Americans must be the highest of high-end users...
what part of "(so far)" don't you understand?
It's dual carrier for 42 mbps --- which means you need 20 MHz (10 up and 10 down) of spectrum space. It has nothing to do with US being ahead/behind --- it has to be with the fact that Australia doesn't have much of a population.
Infrastructure for AT&T may be insufficient --- doesn't mean that the entire US is insufficient. Where are the high-end users when Telstra only up the allowance to 1 GB per month. Your high-end user is our low-end user.
Of course Verizon is slow, but they are doing 1.5 MHz up and 1.5 MHz down for data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman
America sees it's savior as Verizon where you can't use net and voice at the same time operating on a piddly data rate.
You only care about it THIS YEAR --- 3G has been around for 10 years and nobody cares about this CDMA disadvantage. It fundamentally means that Qualcomm made the right choice 10 years ago. Meanwhile all you got is WCDMA 3G with video calling that nobody uses for 10 years.
WCDMA is a gas-guzzling concord and EV-DO is a Boeing 787 with the latest composite materials to improve gas efficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman
And as another Aussie mentioned we are already at initial LTE speeds with 42mbit HSPDA.
The iPhone4 even with twice upload speed doesn't even test the Australian cell network. It's only 7.2mbit.
Next the Americans will be arguing not many people have such devices in Australia. When the opposite is true. Smartphones have huge uptake in Australia and the iPhone has more than 40% of the market.
Again it's spectrum efficiency. US will never give a carrier 20 MHz of spectrum space.
It basically means nothing with that statistic --- the iphone owns 70% of Japan's smartphone market as well. It just means that nobody uses smartphone in Japan.
You basically built a bridge to nowhere and too expensive with a toll. No handset is designed for that speed, and the monthly rate/data allowance doesn't allow the general population to use it.
--- it has to be with the fact that Australia doesn't have much of a population.
Simplistic. Our urban centres on the east coast are as densely populated as virtually any North American city, with similar demand for 3G services. If I am not mistaken, iPhones per capita is amongst the highest in the world here.
Quote:
Infrastructure for AT&T may be insufficient --- doesn't mean that the entire US is insufficient.
The issue at hand is AT&T! Other networks are irrelevant because they don't have the iPhone running on them. We are talking about iPhone performance.
Quote:
Where are the high-end users when Telstra only up the allowance to 1 GB per month. Your high-end user is our low-end user.
Simply wrong! I can get 6gb with $400 of call/text allowances on Telstra for A$79/month! (US$71). ie, bugger all!
When 3G was launched less than 10 years ago speeds were up to 384kbps down and around 64kbps up.
HSDPA (sometimes referred to as 3.5G) has been increasing exponentially and left CDMA behind years ago.
So what sort of download speeds do you generally get on Verizon (almost half owned by Vodafone), as I stated before on Vodafone Australia I average 3.5Mbps with peaks around 5.5.
A Telstra user has posted even higher speeds.
Why don't you give us some numbers of just how SLOW the Droids really are, in spite of their over enthusiastic marketing.
What can a user expect if they link five or six devices to a Droid wifi hotspot?
I'd imagine that the YouTube experience of each would not be terribly good.
See this is an example of something that looks good on paper but is fairly useless in the real world, given the lack of bandwidth it would be something like dial up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
You only care about it THIS YEAR --- 3G has been around for 10 years and nobody cares about this CDMA disadvantage. It fundamentally means that Qualcomm made the right choice 10 years ago. Meanwhile all you got is WCDMA 3G with video calling that nobody uses for 10 years.
WCDMA is a gas-guzzling concord and EV-DO is a Boeing 787 with the latest composite materials to improve gas efficiency.
Vodafone is no slouch as far as iPhones and iPads go in metro areas they are also bottlenecked by the devices.
Don't forget Vodafone rolled out the first HSDPA network in Australia, just before telstra rolled out Next G.
Aussie networks are all good. I just know that Apple Australia managed to perform an excellent rollout of the iphone 4 in aussie. While Apple Aus, who are the ones taht feed into NZ, managed to make a pathetic rollout in NZ.... not so much as having low numbers to sell, just the pathetic lack of communication with them, and their chosen network. At least i am waiting for the same length of time for my two iphones that aussie is... 27th August;
Stood out in the cold for 12 hours for Optus' midnight launch. Worst idea ever.
Not because of any issues, but because I could have just waited a few weeks and actually got sleep that night.
In any case, I have it. No difference in signal no matter how you hold it. Only issue I've got with it is that Optus doesn't seem to get very good 3g coverage at my house (literally just my house, walk to next door neighbours house and its fine), but I have wifi anyway, and its more than likely a by product of the RF interference from all the electrical crap I have in my room.
Would have preferred to get onto Telstra's network, but their data allowance was crap, and when I actually got into the city, placed a couple of calls to mates that work in the stores and found out how many phones they were allocated - Optus 400 in total (for one store, though they opened the second one at 7am), Telstra 110 (for two stores).
Telstra's NextG speed and coverage is EXTREMELY impressive, so much so they've just been certified by the government as being a metro-comparable service for the Australian Broadband Guarantee. This basically means with the rollout of the national broadband network, they'll be covering a lot of the gap that fibre won't reach, with satellite services picking up the rest of the slack.
When 3G was launched less than 10 years ago speeds were up to 384kbps down and around 64kbps up.
HSDPA (sometimes referred to as 3.5G) has been increasing exponentially and left CDMA behind years ago.
So what sort of download speeds do you generally get on Verizon (almost half owned by Vodafone), as I stated before on Vodafone Australia I average 3.5Mbps with peaks around 5.5.
A Telstra user has posted even higher speeds.
Why don't you give us some numbers of just how SLOW the Droids really are, in spite of their over enthusiastic marketing.
What can a user expect if they link five or six devices to a Droid wifi hotspot?
I'd imagine that the YouTube experience of each would not be terribly good.
See this is an example of something that looks good on paper but is fairly useless in the real world, given the lack of bandwidth it would be something like dial up.
From the consumer's point of view, it didn't really matter.
Verizon with their slower 3G network, without the iphone --- managed to bring in more contract subscribers (in a iphone launch quarter no less) than AT&T's faster 3G network with iphone exclusivity.
Maybe you should check your totem because it sounds like you're the one who's not awake.
Hah! Bonus points for the Inception reference. As to ATT vs rest of the world, meh, I couldn't be bothered LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman
And while it is true about population concentration. Regional and remote areas in Australia still have broad coverage...
As I understand since Telstra is (was?) partly government-owned they had a mandate to cover regional areas. Also I think it was smarter to erect cell towers for coverage in remote areas than have to run tons of landlines everywhere. Aussies can be smart!
New Zealand used to have the telecommunications infrastructure as a State Owned Asset and we had the best telecommunications system in the world at the time. The reason was simple... we worked with telecommunications companies as a testbed for their products.
I guess it was easy for New Zealand to do this because we were the perfect nation to do it. We had enough population to give reliable results but we were small enough to roll back if things went wrong.
Once Telecom got sold off and went private our once awesome system became a third world joke and it's only now with more competition that we are starting to get back on track.
Privatisation DOES NOT mean better systems. Everything you said would happen if the Federal Government ran the telecommunications happened in New Zealand BECAUSE of privatisation.
In reality socialism works for the people not for the few people with tonnes of money. Unfortunately New Zealand stopped being socialist in the late 80's and the country has been poorer for it.
Yep, that's the power of Rogernomics. The rich get richer and everyone else gets shafted. Don't even mention the swirling pile of crap that our train system became.
The "geek talk" comes from the Droidtard army who bemoan the iPhone's closed system and lack of ability to be used as a mobile wifi hotspot among other things.
So you've got the freedom to open up your Droid and link it to six or seven devices, what is the "real world" performance like for the "consumers" using those six or seven devices?
What looks good on paper sounds as if it would be next to useless in the "real world".
This is why I dismiss the "Droid does" rubbish as marketing gobbledygook, a load of buzzword laden hogwash regarding a subpar phone on a subpar network, it doesn't even multitask, a call comes in and all your wifi hotspot sharers drop their connection.
This facet of the "Droid does" mantra sounds as useless as tits on a bull.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
From the consumer's point of view, it didn't really matter.
Verizon with their slower 3G network, without the iphone --- managed to bring in more contract subscribers (in a iphone launch quarter no less) than AT&T's faster 3G network with iphone exclusivity.
Comments
Useless to quote theoretical max peak download speed and conclude that you are ahead.
I wasn't referring to theoretical peaks in my last post, although I should note that you started it with the theoretical max. business - not to mention the vapour-stats.
By the end of the year, 1/3 of US will have Verizon's LTE with 5-12 mbps average speed and 50 mbps peak.
And Telstra's is in place at 42Mbps already. And then it won't be much longer before it is improved once more.
A very small number of Americans do use a lot of data --- and these small minority disrupts the network for the vast majority of the people who use data at reasonable amount.
So you admit the infrastructure at the moment is insufficient for the demands placed upon it? There are high-end users everywhere, you realise. But of course you will retort that North Americans must be the highest of high-end users...
People only have their iphones for a few hours --- too early to say that there is no problem down under.
what part of "(so far)" don't you understand?
You sure about that?
Maybe you should check your totem because it sounds like you're the one who's not awake.
PS: It's expected AT&T will have 14.4Mbps HSPA+ by the end of the year.
Nope, after 3 years of reading the silly carry on from the USA I'd have to say I'm on the money. AT&T started 7.2 roll out last year with the 3GS, we already had it blanket with 14mbit strongly established. We had a 3G network 4years before the original iPhone.
America sees it's savior as Verizon where you can't use net and voice at the same time operating on a piddly data rate.
I've read USA news medi a blaming Apple for 3G thinking they invented it. I've read the comic adventures of people coming off dumb phones and crying about battery life, cause they have no idea.
Why have there been no reports from Europe and Australia of dropped calls, poor reception and death grips? Because we have well established cellular networks.
What gets me the most is how the Americans aren't proud of AT&T. these poor sods have had to roll out an entire network while getting pounded in the media and via data.
It's ridiculous and you all hope LTE will save the day when you still don't even have the current generation figured out.
Wake up, it's not the phone. The iPhone4 has been recommended for regional and remote use in Oz. I've used the 3GS extensively in the most remote places you can imagine.
It's a awesome phone when on an awesome network.
Don't worry the USA is streets ahead on landline performance. It's just that Australia due to size and small population has really cranked cellular.
The iPhone4 even with twice upload speed doesn't even test the Australian cell network. It's only 7.2mbit.
Next the Americans will be arguing not many people have such devices in Australia. When the opposite is true. Smartphones have huge uptake in Australia and the iPhone has more than 40% of the market.
Total BS.
Australia had the SLOWEST 3G iphone speed in the wired.com survey.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/08/global-iphone-3/
Speed and signal strength are two different things.
Speeds are often capped down here in order to provide reliable service. I know that's what Vodafone New Zealand do so don't take Wired's word for it.
More often than not the slower speeds work out on average faster because there will be fewer bottle necks. Remember the explanation Apple gave why PPC was faster than Intel despite having slower clock speeds? Same deal with slower but more reliable 3G speeds.
Yeah I'm on a 3GS in Wellington , NZ. I had a spate of dropped calls a while back. But, to give Vodafone their dues they fixed the problem with a bit of feedback. Turns out that it was a repeater problem. If no one rings them about it, nothing gets fixed. The techs were very good.
Now the Off Shore based call centre on the other hand are a completely different story. What a disaster!
You forget the reason behind those dropped calls. I work in Wellington as well and suffered the same issues but it was revealed that it was because of Telecom's XT Network not being filtered and interfering with Vodafone's network.
Total BS.
Australia had the SLOWEST 3G iphone speed in the wired.com survey.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/08/global-iphone-3/
That article is from iPhone launch in 2008. Most people picked Optus who offered a very cheap plan. And back then, Optus also throttled iPhone speed which they don't any more, to reduce network congestion.
This is my iPhone 4 on Telstra. Faster than existing 4G networks. Entirely 850mhz HSPA network at 21mbir. World's best 3G network that is almost always in 5 bars range. Infact the bottleneck here is the iPhone 4.
People on Optus and Vodafone though in Australia, those carriers are about as bad as AT&T, you'd think you should see similar death grip results on them
By the end of the year, 1/3 of US will have Verizon's LTE with 5-12 mbps average speed and 50 mbps peak.
Telstra is already managing those average speeds on 3G.
Telstra also give you very few data allowance per month.
You can get the iPhone 4 for around $70 a month with 3GB cap on Telstra, if you don't select the default data plan. Comparable to AT&T.
But that's population density and lack of competition as well. I am a Canadian --- 3 national carriers (until very very recently), each sharing massive amount of spectrum, and each carrier serving "smallish" cities.
NYC has something like 20 million people and San Francisco has a very hilly geography --- not that hard to understand carriers facing difficulties
Sydney ain't no small city. Has a larger downtown than San Francisco. And Telstra gets around 2-4 mbit in the downtown, the network is a bit more congested there.
Sydney: http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/8...scf6481km6.jpg
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6...scf6485xc1.jpg
San Francisco: http://freelargephotos.com/001142_l.jpg
http://freelargephotos.com/000554_l.jpg
P.S. Did I mention our carriers all offer tethering for free ? (except Optus that is)
Don't forget Vodafone rolled out the first HSDPA network in Australia, just before telstra rolled out Next G.
P.S.
GO WALLABIES
That article is from iPhone launch in 2008. Most people picked Optus who offered a very cheap plan. And back then, Optus also throttled iPhone speed which they don't any more, to reduce network congestion.
This is my iPhone 4 on Telstra. Faster than existing 4G networks. Entirely 850mhz HSPA network at 21mbir. World's best 3G network that is almost always in 5 bars range. Infact the bottleneck here is the iPhone 4.
People on Optus and Vodafone though in Australia, those carriers are about as bad as AT&T, you'd think you should see similar death grip results on them
Telstra is already managing those average speeds on 3G.
You can get the iPhone 4 for around $70 a month with 3GB cap on Telstra, if you don't select the default data plan. Comparable to AT&T.
Sydney ain't no small city. Has a larger downtown than San Francisco. And Telstra gets around 2-4 mbit in the downtown, the network is a bit more congested there.
Sydney: http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/8...scf6481km6.jpg
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6...scf6485xc1.jpg
San Francisco: http://freelargephotos.com/001142_l.jpg
http://freelargephotos.com/000554_l.jpg
P.S. Did I mention our carriers all offer tethering for free ? (except Optus that is)
You forget the reason behind those dropped calls. I work in Wellington as well and suffered the same issues but it was revealed that it was because of Telecom's XT Network not being filtered and interfering with Vodafone's network.
Good to see another Wellingtonian! :-)
Nah it wasn't that spate of dropped calls. It was another one, just in my local area on my local tower. I didn't get any problems anywhere else on my iPhone or BB.
Unless.... The Vodafone guy was lying to me!
*looks suspiciously at the phone*
What difference does it make? That is the free enterprise system. Would you rather have the federal government provide your cell service? It would all be compatible probably mediocre with no incentive to improve. Sort of like our public education system.
This is a false dichotomy, combined with an artificial scenario and a false analogy, all based on an incorrect understanding of "free enterprise" and its benefits and drawbacks. I don't really understand why "free enterprise" enthusiasts feel the need to make these sort of doomsday arguments to support their positions. Sure, total government control of everything isn't a good thing. But unbridled "free enterprise" is at least equally evil. Clearly, the proper course lies somewhere between the extremes. Yes, as always, the devil is in the details, but while people insist on these emotional arguments based on distortion and fear, we make no real progress in any direction.
This is a false dichotomy, combined with an artificial scenario and a false analogy, all based on an incorrect understanding of "free enterprise" and its benefits and drawbacks. I don't really understand why "free enterprise" enthusiasts feel the need to make these sort of doomsday arguments to support their positions. Sure, total government control of everything isn't a good thing. But unbridled "free enterprise" is at least equally evil. Clearly, the proper course lies somewhere between the extremes. Yes, as always, the devil is in the details, but while people insist on these emotional arguments based on distortion and fear, we make no real progress in any direction.
Holy cow... you've posted something we can agree on.
[Faints dead away and has to be revived with a cold glass of superb NZ sauvignon blanc]
What difference does it make? That is the free enterprise system. Would you rather have the federal government provide your cell service? It would all be compatible probably mediocre with no incentive to improve. Sort of like our public education system.
I don't believe that at all.
New Zealand used to have the telecommunications infrastructure as a State Owned Asset and we had the best telecommunications system in the world at the time. The reason was simple... we worked with telecommunications companies as a testbed for their products.
I guess it was easy for New Zealand to do this because we were the perfect nation to do it. We had enough population to give reliable results but we were small enough to roll back if things went wrong.
Once Telecom got sold off and went private our once awesome system became a third world joke and it's only now with more competition that we are starting to get back on track.
Privatisation DOES NOT mean better systems. Everything you said would happen if the Federal Government ran the telecommunications happened in New Zealand BECAUSE of privatisation.
In reality socialism works for the people not for the few people with tonnes of money. Unfortunately New Zealand stopped being socialist in the late 80's and the country has been poorer for it.
And Telstra's is in place at 42Mbps already. And then it won't be much longer before it is improved once more.
So you admit the infrastructure at the moment is insufficient for the demands placed upon it? There are high-end users everywhere, you realise. But of course you will retort that North Americans must be the highest of high-end users...
what part of "(so far)" don't you understand?
It's dual carrier for 42 mbps --- which means you need 20 MHz (10 up and 10 down) of spectrum space. It has nothing to do with US being ahead/behind --- it has to be with the fact that Australia doesn't have much of a population.
Infrastructure for AT&T may be insufficient --- doesn't mean that the entire US is insufficient. Where are the high-end users when Telstra only up the allowance to 1 GB per month. Your high-end user is our low-end user.
Of course Verizon is slow, but they are doing 1.5 MHz up and 1.5 MHz down for data.
America sees it's savior as Verizon where you can't use net and voice at the same time operating on a piddly data rate.
You only care about it THIS YEAR --- 3G has been around for 10 years and nobody cares about this CDMA disadvantage. It fundamentally means that Qualcomm made the right choice 10 years ago. Meanwhile all you got is WCDMA 3G with video calling that nobody uses for 10 years.
WCDMA is a gas-guzzling concord and EV-DO is a Boeing 787 with the latest composite materials to improve gas efficiency.
And as another Aussie mentioned we are already at initial LTE speeds with 42mbit HSPDA.
The iPhone4 even with twice upload speed doesn't even test the Australian cell network. It's only 7.2mbit.
Next the Americans will be arguing not many people have such devices in Australia. When the opposite is true. Smartphones have huge uptake in Australia and the iPhone has more than 40% of the market.
Again it's spectrum efficiency. US will never give a carrier 20 MHz of spectrum space.
It basically means nothing with that statistic --- the iphone owns 70% of Japan's smartphone market as well. It just means that nobody uses smartphone in Japan.
You basically built a bridge to nowhere and too expensive with a toll. No handset is designed for that speed, and the monthly rate/data allowance doesn't allow the general population to use it.
--- it has to be with the fact that Australia doesn't have much of a population.
Simplistic. Our urban centres on the east coast are as densely populated as virtually any North American city, with similar demand for 3G services. If I am not mistaken, iPhones per capita is amongst the highest in the world here.
Infrastructure for AT&T may be insufficient --- doesn't mean that the entire US is insufficient.
The issue at hand is AT&T! Other networks are irrelevant because they don't have the iPhone running on them. We are talking about iPhone performance.
Where are the high-end users when Telstra only up the allowance to 1 GB per month. Your high-end user is our low-end user.
Simply wrong! I can get 6gb with $400 of call/text allowances on Telstra for A$79/month! (US$71). ie, bugger all!
HSDPA (sometimes referred to as 3.5G) has been increasing exponentially and left CDMA behind years ago.
So what sort of download speeds do you generally get on Verizon (almost half owned by Vodafone), as I stated before on Vodafone Australia I average 3.5Mbps with peaks around 5.5.
A Telstra user has posted even higher speeds.
Why don't you give us some numbers of just how SLOW the Droids really are, in spite of their over enthusiastic marketing.
What can a user expect if they link five or six devices to a Droid wifi hotspot?
I'd imagine that the YouTube experience of each would not be terribly good.
See this is an example of something that looks good on paper but is fairly useless in the real world, given the lack of bandwidth it would be something like dial up.
You only care about it THIS YEAR --- 3G has been around for 10 years and nobody cares about this CDMA disadvantage. It fundamentally means that Qualcomm made the right choice 10 years ago. Meanwhile all you got is WCDMA 3G with video calling that nobody uses for 10 years.
WCDMA is a gas-guzzling concord and EV-DO is a Boeing 787 with the latest composite materials to improve gas efficiency.
Vodafone is no slouch as far as iPhones and iPads go in metro areas they are also bottlenecked by the devices.
Don't forget Vodafone rolled out the first HSDPA network in Australia, just before telstra rolled out Next G.
Aussie networks are all good. I just know that Apple Australia managed to perform an excellent rollout of the iphone 4 in aussie. While Apple Aus, who are the ones taht feed into NZ, managed to make a pathetic rollout in NZ.... not so much as having low numbers to sell, just the pathetic lack of communication with them, and their chosen network. At least i am waiting for the same length of time for my two iphones that aussie is... 27th August;
GO WALLABIES
How was the score...
Not because of any issues, but because I could have just waited a few weeks and actually got sleep that night.
In any case, I have it. No difference in signal no matter how you hold it. Only issue I've got with it is that Optus doesn't seem to get very good 3g coverage at my house (literally just my house, walk to next door neighbours house and its fine), but I have wifi anyway, and its more than likely a by product of the RF interference from all the electrical crap I have in my room.
Would have preferred to get onto Telstra's network, but their data allowance was crap, and when I actually got into the city, placed a couple of calls to mates that work in the stores and found out how many phones they were allocated - Optus 400 in total (for one store, though they opened the second one at 7am), Telstra 110 (for two stores).
Telstra's NextG speed and coverage is EXTREMELY impressive, so much so they've just been certified by the government as being a metro-comparable service for the Australian Broadband Guarantee. This basically means with the rollout of the national broadband network, they'll be covering a lot of the gap that fibre won't reach, with satellite services picking up the rest of the slack.
When 3G was launched less than 10 years ago speeds were up to 384kbps down and around 64kbps up.
HSDPA (sometimes referred to as 3.5G) has been increasing exponentially and left CDMA behind years ago.
So what sort of download speeds do you generally get on Verizon (almost half owned by Vodafone), as I stated before on Vodafone Australia I average 3.5Mbps with peaks around 5.5.
A Telstra user has posted even higher speeds.
Why don't you give us some numbers of just how SLOW the Droids really are, in spite of their over enthusiastic marketing.
What can a user expect if they link five or six devices to a Droid wifi hotspot?
I'd imagine that the YouTube experience of each would not be terribly good.
See this is an example of something that looks good on paper but is fairly useless in the real world, given the lack of bandwidth it would be something like dial up.
From the consumer's point of view, it didn't really matter.
Verizon with their slower 3G network, without the iphone --- managed to bring in more contract subscribers (in a iphone launch quarter no less) than AT&T's faster 3G network with iphone exclusivity.
That's the real world --- not your geek talk.
Holy cow... you've posted something we can agree on.
[Faints dead away and has to be revived with a cold glass of superb NZ sauvignon blanc]
Ah, sauvignon blanc, how I had loved thee... The only white wine worth getting trashed on.
You sure about that?
- http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pi...rticleid=30358
Maybe you should check your totem because it sounds like you're the one who's not awake.Hah! Bonus points for the Inception reference. As to ATT vs rest of the world, meh, I couldn't be bothered LOL.
And while it is true about population concentration. Regional and remote areas in Australia still have broad coverage...
As I understand since Telstra is (was?) partly government-owned they had a mandate to cover regional areas. Also I think it was smarter to erect cell towers for coverage in remote areas than have to run tons of landlines everywhere. Aussies can be smart!
I don't believe that at all.
New Zealand used to have the telecommunications infrastructure as a State Owned Asset and we had the best telecommunications system in the world at the time. The reason was simple... we worked with telecommunications companies as a testbed for their products.
I guess it was easy for New Zealand to do this because we were the perfect nation to do it. We had enough population to give reliable results but we were small enough to roll back if things went wrong.
Once Telecom got sold off and went private our once awesome system became a third world joke and it's only now with more competition that we are starting to get back on track.
Privatisation DOES NOT mean better systems. Everything you said would happen if the Federal Government ran the telecommunications happened in New Zealand BECAUSE of privatisation.
In reality socialism works for the people not for the few people with tonnes of money. Unfortunately New Zealand stopped being socialist in the late 80's and the country has been poorer for it.
Yep, that's the power of Rogernomics. The rich get richer and everyone else gets shafted. Don't even mention the swirling pile of crap that our train system became.
So you've got the freedom to open up your Droid and link it to six or seven devices, what is the "real world" performance like for the "consumers" using those six or seven devices?
What looks good on paper sounds as if it would be next to useless in the "real world".
This is why I dismiss the "Droid does" rubbish as marketing gobbledygook, a load of buzzword laden hogwash regarding a subpar phone on a subpar network, it doesn't even multitask, a call comes in and all your wifi hotspot sharers drop their connection.
This facet of the "Droid does" mantra sounds as useless as tits on a bull.
From the consumer's point of view, it didn't really matter.
Verizon with their slower 3G network, without the iphone --- managed to bring in more contract subscribers (in a iphone launch quarter no less) than AT&T's faster 3G network with iphone exclusivity.
That's the real world --- not your geek talk.