The CEO of Nokia, a few months ago, even came out and said that Nokia has not been very active in the US market.
Source? Not been very active could mean not very successful very easily in CEO speak.
Quote:
The fact remains, Nokia is not really interested in the US at this moment. I am very sure, if they were, you would see more phones for the US market. It is not this hard to understand is it?
Yes, it is pretty easy to understand that you haven't stated any facts. The only known facts stated here with respect to Nokia is the marketshare figures. Since they actually have a non-trivial marketshare in the USA of 7% (down from 20% two years ago), I'd hazard a guess that they are interested, just not successful. It isn't that hard to understand.
Quote:
My idea of not making phone calls was one of practicality. You need the phone, and in some cases the contract, so a boycott would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. However, making less calls will result in less income and will be immediately felt where as contract renewals would take a while to get traction. Agree about the gov't thing as well.
The only way we can get USA carriers to change is to not renew contracts and to go without. The vast majority of people here sign onto 1 to 2 year contracts. The carriers get a monthly payment from us regardless of us using the phones or not. They'd probably thank us for giving them a break.
The only real way is through having a bigger lobby in Congress.
Thank you for responding. I've checked Vodafone UK, O2 Ireland and O2 UK. Vodafone does indeed allow you to tether as it is explicitly stated. Good for them and good for its customers; however, I really don't see a free lunch. I may be confused, but Internet access seems quite expensive:
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
Is this true? Can't believe it is because I can burn through 15 MB in about 15 minutes let alone day. I'll try to check the bigger bandwidth plans.
Yes, but it is important to not to confuse UK/Ireland with the rest of Europe
Cost? And are you really sure it is unlimited? What's the excessive use policy?
By the way, isn't 384 or 512 kb/sec kind of slow for the supposedly awesome European cell networks?
I do not know how to make it any clearer. Unlimited as in no limit. None, keine, nunca. No limits.
My company has a local office here with loaner cards for consultants passing through. I use one to tether whenever I am here. The rates are 19 or 20 Euros a month for unlimited data.
The 384/512 are guaranteed in all cases but the usual is 7.2 mb/s in most circumstances.
Source? Not been very active could mean not very successful very easily in CEO speak.
Yes, it is pretty easy to understand that you haven't stated any facts. The only known facts stated here with respect to Nokia is the marketshare figures. Since they actually have a non-trivial marketshare in the USA of 7% (down from 20% two years ago), I'd hazard a guess that they are interested, just not successful. It isn't that hard to understand.
You've been in this forum longer than me. I read it here about the time when the 3G iPhone was launched. They fact that I did not post a link does not make it untrue, just unsubstantiated.
So, as I said, Nokia did not try as hard as they could. Time will tell if they are really serious about it, but in my opinion, why bother. The US market is too fragmented and many of the phones that Nokia produces probably will not appeal to US consumers anyway.
Quote:
The only way we can get USA carriers to change is to not renew contracts and to go without. The vast majority of people here sign onto 1 to 2 year contracts. The carriers get a monthly payment from us regardless of us using the phones or not. They'd probably thank us for giving them a break.
The only real way is through having a bigger lobby in Congress.
I don't think so. Going without is not an option anymore. Cellphones are a pervasive part of life and needed, but you can cut back on usage and services and still make a substancial impact on the bottom line.
I do not know how to make it any clearer. Unlimited as in no limit. None, keine, nunca. No limits.
My company has a local office here with loaner cards for consultants passing through. I use one to tether whenever I am here. The rates are 19 or 20 Euros a month for unlimited data.
Are you being obtuse? Really? Btw, you're on T-mobile? Which country, what plan?
I went to the T-Mobile Germany Website, Google translated from German to English, and this is what you get for the web'n'walk L (laptop plan):
web'n'walk Connect L
Only a month
39.95 € 1)
Benefits at a Glance
* Ideal for laptop-wide web surfers
* Flat with full cost control
* No additional cost, unlimited volume of data already included
* Exclusively for data, not voice telephony possible
It says unlimited data is included, but there is a footnote. That "1)" after the "39.95 Euro" is where footnote was placed. It states that:
1) Offer applies for online completion of a T-Mobile contract in the tariff web'n'walk Connect L with a minimum contract of 24 months. The availability of price 24.95 € omitted for online ordering. The basic monthly amount of 39.95 € omitted for online ordering for 2 months. The T-Mobile web'n'walk Stick with Acer Aspire One is A150X advantage of online excluded. Applies only in domestic volume with unlimited usage for packet data traffic in mobile network of T-Mobile Germany. From a data volume of 5 GB per month is the bandwidth in each month at Max 64 kbit / s (download) and 16 kbit / s (upload) is limited. The use of VoIP, instant messaging and peer-to-peer traffic is excluded. The flat rate can not be used for WLAN and not for traffic on the BlackBerry APN used. Not in conjunction with Multisim booked. A resale as well as free transfer of the service to third parties is inadmissible. T-Mobile reserves the right, after 24 clock one automatic separation of the connection to implement. The offer is limited until 31.12.2008
So after 5 GB, they start bandwidth capping you. Interesting that they say they don't allow VoIP and IM too. The "not to be used for WLAN", I'm not sure what they means, but I'm interpreting it to mean you use the plan for router type applications.
This is what I mean by being sure. An iTunes user or an Internet movie/video watcher can break 5 GB quite easily, but it's fine for virtually all mobile uses. Not so much for broadband type access, but most mobile-based broadband usage is all for business usage with lower data demand, and probably ok. And 40 Euro is just as expensive if not more so that USA mobile broadband plans.
There is also a 25 Euro plan (web'n'walk M), but it is limited to 300 MB data, and they start charging you 0.50 Euro/MB afterwards.
Quote:
The 384/512 are guaranteed in all cases but the usual is 7.2 mb/s in most circumstances.
You actually get 7.2 Mbit/sec on your modem or your phone? Really?
So, as I said, Nokia did not try as hard as they could. Time will tell if they are really serious about it, but in my opinion, why bother. The US market is too fragmented and many of the phones that Nokia produces probably will not appeal to US consumers anyway.
The articles are short enough to show here. From the mobiletracker.net link:
Nokia's new CEO serious about US market
Aug 10 2006 - 03:11 PM ET | Nokia
Nokia's US marketshare may be tumbling in the US, but the company's new CEO isn't settling to be a distant player. Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo took the reigns over in June and has announced plans to spend one week per month in the US. That's significant considering the US only makes up 8.3% of Nokia's revenue.
Worldwide Nokia is the top mobile phone manufacturer, but Motorola dominates in the US market. Analysts blame Nokia's late adoption of the clamshell form factor as one of the leading causes. Its failed CDMA play also has contributed, half the US isn't even a potential customer.
Some changes are expected to be made, including an increased emphasis on design and style.
And, the company plans to launch slimmer handsets over the coming months to better compete with Motorola's hit RAZR phones. "We are making very good progress in getting thinner," says Mr. Kallasvuo. But, he adds, "we are not there as of yet."
And from the fiercewireless.com link:
Nokia: We over invested in the U.S. market
November 29, 2006 ? 8:01pm ET
Nokia chief Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo said his company has "over invested" in R&D in the U.S. market, and instead will pursue an incremental strategy of expanding its portfolio in the market rather than looking for the silver bullet in the mid-priced handset range. The U.S. market represents less than 10 percent of Nokia's annual global shipments, and Nokia never gained a foothold in the U.S. CDMA market, which it bowed out of earlier this year. Kallusvuo said there was "no magic bullet" that would help Nokia gain more market share, only that the task required "hard work and more hard work." Of the four slim phones the world's largest handset maker introduced yesterday, only one might work in the U.S. on T-Mobile's network. The Nokia 6086 is a mass-market UMA phone that supports quad-band GSM, but it looks like T-Mobile will have to heavily subsidize it to make it appeal to the mass market.
This reads like failure to me, even in your parlance of not trying as hard as they could. The CEO spending one week a month in the USA sends like trying pretty hard to me. I doubt he actually did it as world demands on his time would be great. Perhaps it was on they were only intending to try hard.
As far as the Nokia portfolio not being attractive to the American market, I would hazard a guess that, yes, they do have phones that Americans would like (N-series, E-series, various other phone series). Who knows why they only offer subsidized crap here.
Quote:
I don't think so. Going without is not an option anymore. Cellphones are a pervasive part of life and needed, but you can cut back on usage and services and still make a substancial impact on the bottom line.
Cutting back on services may work, such as not buying a SMS text plan, not buying a data plan, etc. However, like I said, most of us are on 12/24 month contracts, and once you sign onto the plans, the carriers get money regardless of how much we use the network. It may even save them money (increase profit margin) if we don't stress the network.
Yes, but it is important to not to confuse UK/Ireland with the rest of Europe
Well, I did look at T-Mobile Germany, and the data costs, term & conditions, and usage limitations don't seem all that different to USA carriers. The more I dig, the less impressed I get.
LONDON (Reuters) - Nokia's answer to Apple's iPhone will go on sale in seven countries in Asia, the Middle East and Europe this year but will miss the Christmas shopping season in most developed markets.
The first touch-screen phone from the world's top mobile phone maker will go on sale in India, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Russia and Spain by year-end.
The Nokia 5800 will cost 279 euros ($387) before operator subsidies and taxes, substantially less than the iPhone.
"The phone is competitively priced and Nokia's competitive advantage is in emerging markets. When putting two and two together it's logical they start the roll-out from emerging markets," said analyst Neil Mawston from Strategy Analytics.
The research firm expects Nokia to ship more than 10 million touch-screen phones next year.
Um, weird set of countries to start out. Seems random? Probably other parts of Europe in Q1 09 and more in Q2 09. Who knows about the USA. Anyways, must be an interesting coincidence with the 10 million unit prediction. Considering the breadth and depth of Nokia's worldwide reach, Nokia should be able to sell that many units in a year, but I kind of doubt that it will be in the same market as the iPhone. Not quite direct competitors.
Also, like was said last year when CWM was announced, there's been some friction between Nokia and the Operators. Looks like those wheels have yet to be greased:
Published: October 2 2008 23:15 | Last updated: October 2 2008 23:15
Nokia faces a setback at the global launch of its music service in the UK this month because the country’s big four mobile operators do not plan to sell it.
Vodafone, O2 , Orange and T-Mobile are not expecting to use their high street stores to offer Nokia’s handsets featuring its unlimited music download service in the run-up to Christmas.
That would be a setback for Nokia, the biggest mobile handset maker, which is beginning an ambitious strategy of putting services such as music on to phones. It also underlines tensions between Nokia and the operators.
Nokia’s Comes With Music service had a global launch party in London on Thursday.
Two Nokia handsets featuring the service, which offers consumers the ability to download as much music as they want over a 12 or 18 month subscription period, go on sale on October 16 in the UK.
However, Nokia’s long-awaited 5800 mobile, its first touchscreen smartphone, is not one of the two launch models for the service because it will not go on sale in the UK until next year.
Wonder how much of the music revenue pie the Operators are asking for from Nokia, if indeed that is the friction? Also ironic is that CWM uses MS PlaysForSure DRM!
I haven't done a full survey of data rates in all of europe, but personally in Finland I use a 384kbps BW capped connection for 9,80?/month. If I want higher bandwidth, it costs more (30? for 2Mbps, 35? for 5Mbps). A similar scenario is in all nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark). These prices do not require a commitment of any duration unless you want a free USB modem with it (at least with my operator). With the free USB modem, the commitment in my case is 24 months. But this also includes dual-SIM for free.
And there is no cap on the data transfers. The only limit is that it's not allowed to be used for P2P filesharing. As for Voice, no monthly fee, 0.069 euro Cents per minute. If I want cheaper calls, I can take a separate voice package (not tethered to my data package) and tailor it with a fixed monthly fee and lower phone calls.
And yes, the 7.2Mbps (theoretical, 5.something practical) someone discussed here is a reality here in Europe. Faster speeds wait for terminals that support more than 10 codes.
As to why Nokia is not doing very well in the US? That has many factors in it. Many have already been mentioned, but one big factor is the operator control in the US on what mobiles get put in the market. The operators dictate what phones get to the market and if the manufacturer doesn't bend over and drop it when the operator wants, the vendor is not let in.
The iPhone garners a lot of interest, but the expensive lock-in for the iPhone is a very much limiting factor at least here. This is why other phones garner more interest (apart from many features that the iPhone _currently_ misses). My wife or my parents for example couldn't care less that the phone is "sexy". That doesn't mean that I don't expect the iPhone's market share to rise in Europe. After all, when you start from zero in most markets, the only way is up.
And yes, the 7.2Mbps (theoretical, 5.something practical) someone discussed here is a reality here in Europe. Faster speeds wait for terminals that support more than 10 codes.
Yes, Europe has 7.2 Mbit/s HSDPA networks. But obviously no one gets 7.2 Mbit/s. At best, real world conditions are 40% to 50% of the theoretical number due to overhead. It gets even lower if the tower has a lot of users.
Quote:
The iPhone garners a lot of interest, but the expensive lock-in for the iPhone is a very much limiting factor at least here. This is why other phones garner more interest (apart from many features that the iPhone _currently_ misses). My wife or my parents for example couldn't care less that the phone is "sexy". That doesn't mean that I don't expect the iPhone's market share to rise in Europe. After all, when you start from zero in most markets, the only way is up.
Yup, price is by far the dominant factor in many products' sales.
Adobe is not the only type of "flash" the iPhone is missing... *cough* CAMERA! *cough*
With that said, I'm with most in agreement that not all touchscreens and UI's are created equal. The apple UI is IMHO one of the best I've tried. Though I have yet to try the Nokia, it is not making the best impression on me with single touch and stylus mentions...
And who knows how thick and chunky the Nokia will be!? A lot of the iPhone's charm is looks and sleekness.
[QUOTE=THT;1318523]Yes, Europe has 7.2 Mbit/s HSDPA networks. But obviously no one gets 7.2 Mbit/s. At best, real world conditions are 40% to 50% of the theoretical number due to overhead. It gets even lower if the tower has a lot of users./QUOTE]
Actually the real life values can easily be significantly higher than 40%-50%. Current terminals use 5 codes (theoretical 3.6Mbps, practical in cities 2.4-2.7Mbps) or 10 codes (7.2Mbps). With 15 code phones (Note, the networks often support this already if they have 7.2Mbps), the theoretical goes to over 10Mbps and in simulated lab scenarios (as in not optimal radio), the speeds are well over 7Mbps.
And yes, that's shared bandwidth if all 15 available codes are in use in the terminals (none available yet).
Actually the real life values can easily be significantly higher than 40%-50%. Current terminals use 5 codes (theoretical 3.6Mbps, practical in cities 2.4-2.7Mbps) or 10 codes (7.2Mbps). With 15 code phones (Note, the networks often support this already if they have 7.2Mbps), the theoretical goes to over 10Mbps and in simulated lab scenarios (as in not optimal radio), the speeds are well over 7Mbps.
And yes, that's shared bandwidth if all 15 available codes are in use in the terminals (none available yet).
Not sure I trust some of the real world numbers out there. Wired's iPhone bandwidth survey had some rather unbelievable numbers for a supposed 3.6 Mbit/s baseband hardware. Many of them ranged from 3 Mbit/s to 7 Mbit/s. If it is really 3.6 Mbit/s hardware, the bandwidth test sample sizes must have been very small, introducing some unrealistic results. Around 40% is typically good rule of thumb for bandwidth under normal conditions. There's maybe a superlow overhead streaming transfer that can get higher, but I imagine those are few and quite ideal conditions. I can probably buy 60% there.
Sure it's shared bandwidth, but if the tower is "full", you're sharing the bandwidth among honking amount of users, and the tower only has so much bandwidth to the routing station (whatever it is called) it is connected to. This is one of the reasons why AT&T and iPhone 3G haven't been a great combination: they couldn't handle the initial surge of traffic at launch and are barely handling it afterward. Too many iPhones demanding data. I really don't think any network is prepared for the bandwidth demands if iPhone-like phones are one the most popular phones on the network. The operators would have overinvested in their networks if they built so much capability into 3G networks, otherwise.
Not sure I trust some of the real world numbers out there. Wired's iPhone bandwidth survey had some rather unbelievable numbers for a supposed 3.6 Mbit/s baseband hardware. Many of them ranged from 3 Mbit/s to 7 Mbit/s. If it is really 3.6 Mbit/s hardware, the bandwidth test sample sizes must have been very small, introducing some unrealistic results. Around 40% is typically good rule of thumb for bandwidth under normal conditions. There's maybe a superlow overhead streaming transfer that can get higher, but I imagine those are few and quite ideal conditions. I can probably buy 60% there.
Those 2.something Mbps figures was achieved after a work day in the middle of Stockholm about a year ago on a thursday evening with 3.6Mbps HW. Measured by real life downloads from the internet sitting in a hotel room with three bars out of five for coverage. This was after the operator experienced huge increases in their usage of their network. Believe me: I was probably more surprised than you are suspicious when I saw it with my own eyes.
The Base station can nowadays (if the operator has done the SW upgrade) handle 15 codes per cell. One 3.6 Mbps HW phone does 5 codes. So basically (theoretically) three 3.6Mbps phones/cell blasting at full capacity is easy. The throughput per phone naturally depends on the radio conditions, but in cities the radio conditions are generally good. And remember that web surfing is bursty so a cell in reality can handle more users with good "user experience" as long as transmission from the site is done properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
Sure it's shared bandwidth, but if the tower is "full", you're sharing the bandwidth among honking amount of users, and the tower only has so much bandwidth to the routing station (whatever it is called) it is connected to. ... The operators would have overinvested in their networks if they built so much capability into 3G networks, otherwise.
Yep. Totally agree that in many cases they've underinvested. But then again not all operators use E1/T1s to all sites. Some sites have ATM (OC-3/STM-1) shared with several Base Stations and this gives more headroom.
So currently your experience will vary from operator to operator based on their transmission capacities towards the fixed nets (at least on this side of the pond). But to say that in Europe, the networks may be 7.2Mbps, but you'll never achieve multiMbps download speeds in real life is just plain wrong.
To bring the iPhone back to the thread: basically the iPhone needs to do HSDPA well with low power consuption if it wants to retain it's image of good end-user experience (don't want to be recharging several times a day).
Those 2.something Mbps figures was achieved after a work day in the middle of Stockholm about a year ago on a thursday evening with 3.6Mbps HW. Measured by real life downloads from the internet sitting in a hotel room with three bars out of five for coverage. This was after the operator experienced huge increases in their usage of their network. Believe me: I was probably more surprised than you are suspicious when I saw it with my own eyes.
The Base station can nowadays (if the operator has done the SW upgrade) handle 15 codes per cell. One 3.6 Mbps HW phone does 5 codes. So basically (theoretically) three 3.6Mbps phones/cell blasting at full capacity is easy. The throughput per phone naturally depends on the radio conditions, but in cities the radio conditions are generally good. And remember that web surfing is bursty so a cell in reality can handle more users with good "user experience" as long as transmission from the site is done properly.
Yep. Totally agree that in many cases they've underinvested. But then again not all operators use E1/T1s to all sites. Some sites have ATM (OC-3/STM-1) shared with several Base Stations and this gives more headroom.
So currently your experience will vary from operator to operator based on their transmission capacities towards the fixed nets (at least on this side of the pond). But to say that in Europe, the networks may be 7.2Mbps, but you'll never achieve multiMbps download speeds in real life is just plain wrong.
To bring the iPhone back to the thread: basically the iPhone needs to do HSDPA well with low power consuption if it wants to retain it's image of good end-user experience (don't want to be recharging several times a day).
Terve Jarko,
Good luck trying to convince some in this thread of anything. Unless it personally happens to them, all other data and info is invalid. You are correct about the data speeds though. When I am passing though Helsinki, I will use either DNA or Sonera (or company dumped Elisa as they are not very good) for all of my mobile data needs. In Germany I tend to use Vodafone, and surprisingly E-Plus. 7.2 mb/s data rates are close but theoretical in nature. You would probably have to stand under a tower to get it for the most part I get close to what is advertised. The problem with AT&T is that they have a crappy network, run by crappy managers. They need to build in more capacity and stop with the blame disperal.
So currently your experience will vary from operator to operator based on their transmission capacities towards the fixed nets (at least on this side of the pond). But to say that in Europe, the networks may be 7.2Mbps, but you'll never achieve multiMbps download speeds in real life is just plain wrong.
I don't think I implied or said that you don't get multiMbps download speeds. I was trying to say you never get the theoretical bandwidth number and that it is likely you only 40% of theoretical. That you were surprised in getting more than that is comforting to me that the rule of thumb works. For some users in Europe, they are probably capped at some 20% number or even lower depending how busy the area is, so many people may think they are getting the full "3.6 Mbit/s or 7.2 Mbit/s" aren't even getting close to what they think or paying for, and don't even realize it.
Quote:
To bring the iPhone back to the thread: basically the iPhone needs to do HSDPA well with low power consuption if it wants to retain it's image of good end-user experience (don't want to be recharging several times a day).
Recharging several time a day? That's got to be a corner case usage that Apple simply doesn't care to cater to. They are trying to get about 5 hours of data usage or talk time, which I think they get reasonably within. For those who are on the phone (talking and/or browsing) all day, Apple is ok with losing a sale there.
I don't think I implied or said that you don't get multiMbps download speeds. I was trying to say you never get the theoretical bandwidth number and that it is likely you only 40% of theoretical. That you were surprised in getting more than that is comforting to me that the rule of thumb works. For some users in Europe, they are probably capped at some 20% number or even lower depending how busy the area is, so many people may think they are getting the full "3.6 Mbit/s or 7.2 Mbit/s" aren't even getting close to what they think or paying for, and don't even realize it.
Your original quote:
Quote:
Not sure I trust some of the real world numbers out there. Wired's iPhone bandwidth survey had some rather unbelievable numbers for a supposed 3.6 Mbit/s baseband hardware. Many of them ranged from 3 Mbit/s to 7 Mbit/s. If it is really 3.6 Mbit/s hardware, the bandwidth test sample sizes must have been very small, introducing some unrealistic results. Around 40% is typically good rule of thumb for bandwidth under normal conditions. There's maybe a superlow overhead streaming transfer that can get higher, but I imagine those are few and quite ideal conditions. I can probably buy 60% there.
It sounds as though you implied it even if you did not say it explicitly. Multiple Mbps speeds are quite common, especially for people willing to purchase QoS as part of these plans, besides being easy to prove with all the various speed testing applications avail. Operators would get sued back to the stone age if they were caught shorting on bandwidth but collecting service fees for higher bandwidths. You also list percentages: 40%, 20%, as quotes but you do not provide any data to back this up other than T-Mobile. Could it be concluded that these are just guesses on your part?
Not sure I trust some of the real world numbers out there. Wired's iPhone bandwidth survey had some rather unbelievable numbers for a supposed 3.6 Mbit/s baseband hardware. Many of them ranged from 3 Mbit/s to 7 Mbit/s. If it is really 3.6 Mbit/s hardware, the bandwidth test sample sizes must have been very small, introducing some unrealistic results. Around 40% is typically good rule of thumb for bandwidth under normal conditions. There's maybe a superlow overhead streaming transfer that can get higher, but I imagine those are few and quite ideal conditions. I can probably buy 60% there.
It sounds as though you implied it even if you did not say it explicitly. Multiple Mbps speeds are quite common, especially for people willing to purchase QoS as part of these plans, besides being easy to prove with all the various speed testing applications avail. Operators would get sued back to the stone age if they were caught shorting on bandwidth but collecting service fees for higher bandwidths. You also list percentages: 40%, 20%, as quotes but you do not provide any data to back this up other than T-Mobile. Could it be concluded that these are just guesses on your part?
If you mulitply 40% with 3.6 MBit/s, 0.40*3.6 = 1.44 Mbit/s. For 60%, 0.60*3.6 = 2.16 MBit/s. That's multi-megabit/s to me.
Yes, they are guesses, but they are rule of thumb guesses. When you say rule of thumb, it's based on my knowledge of how networking works. There's a lot of overhead (information about what to transfer, how to transfer, recognition of a commands) that have to be transferred, and you won't get close to the theoretical numbers. For wired networks or buses on logic boards, 80% is a good rule of thumb. A wireless network can achieve that, but that's some pretty ideal conditions. Wireless networks have a humungous amount of things to overcome to get a great connection. I think 40% is a good number to use and for what to expect for data performance.
The 20% number was for a bandwidth capped number, a fairly common practice among operators. Obviously there are situations where people get even less than that (10%, 5%) due to various things effecting the signal quality like buildings, anything with lots of metal, issues at the tower, lots of users, lots of solar radiation, the phones themselves, tower synchronization, etc.
Why don't you ask Jarkko if 80% of the theoretical bandwidth a common number? I wouldn't expect that all of the time.
I don't think I implied or said that you don't get multiMbps download speeds. I was trying to say you never get the theoretical bandwidth number and that it is likely you only 40% of theoretical. That you were surprised in getting more than that is comforting to me that the rule of thumb works. For some users in Europe, they are probably capped at some 20% number or even lower depending how busy the area is, so many people may think they are getting the full "3.6 Mbit/s or 7.2 Mbit/s" aren't even getting close to what they think or paying for, and don't even realize it.
A 20% cap on bandwidth would make no sense and if you purchased say a 2Mbps subscription and customers would revolt. But congestion situations are naturally possible and very much increasing due to increased uptake of high bandwidth services due to the (finally) spreading reasonable pricing models over here for data access, availability of USB modems. Maybe the iPhone and clones will eventually have that effect here as well.
I've been training HSDPA (with real equipment) for a while now and the overheads are not the reason you get bad bitrates (heard a reliable report of well over 8Mbps on a 10.7 cell and I get consistently 2.5+Mbps on a 3.6). Bad bitrates are either due to bad radio conditions, congestion in the cell or limitations on transmission (which I've been told is the case in AT&T?). In other words bad network planning.
But those are in good radio conditions. The reason I was originally surprised in stockholm was that I got that in a not-so-good radio environment (3 out of 5 bars). Your 40-60% rule of thumb is not a bad rule and yes, in bad conditions (bad radio + congestion) even lower values are naturally possible. The question I guess is what is the average situation in Europe vs. US. I don't believe we can answer that question very easily without proper surveys. You've now heard the experience of two user's. That's not a very representative take.
Regs, Jarkko
And sorry if I blamed you for something you didn't say. It's was the impression I got and I should have been a bit more careful.
Comments
Unlimited data@ 384 or 512 kb/sec. No limitations. All you can eat.
Cost? And are you really sure it is unlimited? What's the excessive use policy?
By the way, isn't 384 or 512 kb/sec kind of slow for the supposedly awesome European cell networks?
The CEO of Nokia, a few months ago, even came out and said that Nokia has not been very active in the US market.
Source? Not been very active could mean not very successful very easily in CEO speak.
The fact remains, Nokia is not really interested in the US at this moment. I am very sure, if they were, you would see more phones for the US market. It is not this hard to understand is it?
Yes, it is pretty easy to understand that you haven't stated any facts. The only known facts stated here with respect to Nokia is the marketshare figures. Since they actually have a non-trivial marketshare in the USA of 7% (down from 20% two years ago), I'd hazard a guess that they are interested, just not successful. It isn't that hard to understand.
My idea of not making phone calls was one of practicality. You need the phone, and in some cases the contract, so a boycott would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. However, making less calls will result in less income and will be immediately felt where as contract renewals would take a while to get traction. Agree about the gov't thing as well.
The only way we can get USA carriers to change is to not renew contracts and to go without. The vast majority of people here sign onto 1 to 2 year contracts. The carriers get a monthly payment from us regardless of us using the phones or not. They'd probably thank us for giving them a break.
The only real way is through having a bigger lobby in Congress.
Thank you for responding. I've checked Vodafone UK, O2 Ireland and O2 UK. Vodafone does indeed allow you to tether as it is explicitly stated. Good for them and good for its customers; however, I really don't see a free lunch. I may be confused, but Internet access seems quite expensive:
Is this true? Can't believe it is because I can burn through 15 MB in about 15 minutes let alone day. I'll try to check the bigger bandwidth plans.
Yes, but it is important to not to confuse UK/Ireland with the rest of Europe
Cost? And are you really sure it is unlimited? What's the excessive use policy?
By the way, isn't 384 or 512 kb/sec kind of slow for the supposedly awesome European cell networks?
I do not know how to make it any clearer. Unlimited as in no limit. None, keine, nunca. No limits.
My company has a local office here with loaner cards for consultants passing through. I use one to tether whenever I am here. The rates are 19 or 20 Euros a month for unlimited data.
The 384/512 are guaranteed in all cases but the usual is 7.2 mb/s in most circumstances.
Source? Not been very active could mean not very successful very easily in CEO speak.
Yes, it is pretty easy to understand that you haven't stated any facts. The only known facts stated here with respect to Nokia is the marketshare figures. Since they actually have a non-trivial marketshare in the USA of 7% (down from 20% two years ago), I'd hazard a guess that they are interested, just not successful. It isn't that hard to understand.
You've been in this forum longer than me. I read it here about the time when the 3G iPhone was launched. They fact that I did not post a link does not make it untrue, just unsubstantiated.
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...excited_a.html (link stopped working for some reason)
http://www.mobiletracker.net/archive...0/nokia-ceo-us
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/...ket/2006-11-30
So, as I said, Nokia did not try as hard as they could. Time will tell if they are really serious about it, but in my opinion, why bother. The US market is too fragmented and many of the phones that Nokia produces probably will not appeal to US consumers anyway.
The only way we can get USA carriers to change is to not renew contracts and to go without. The vast majority of people here sign onto 1 to 2 year contracts. The carriers get a monthly payment from us regardless of us using the phones or not. They'd probably thank us for giving them a break.
The only real way is through having a bigger lobby in Congress.
I don't think so. Going without is not an option anymore. Cellphones are a pervasive part of life and needed, but you can cut back on usage and services and still make a substancial impact on the bottom line.
I do not know how to make it any clearer. Unlimited as in no limit. None, keine, nunca. No limits.
My company has a local office here with loaner cards for consultants passing through. I use one to tether whenever I am here. The rates are 19 or 20 Euros a month for unlimited data.
Are you being obtuse? Really? Btw, you're on T-mobile? Which country, what plan?
I went to the T-Mobile Germany Website, Google translated from German to English, and this is what you get for the web'n'walk L (laptop plan):
web'n'walk Connect L
Only a month
39.95 € 1)
Benefits at a Glance
* Ideal for laptop-wide web surfers
* Flat with full cost control
* No additional cost, unlimited volume of data already included
* Exclusively for data, not voice telephony possible
It says unlimited data is included, but there is a footnote. That "1)" after the "39.95 Euro" is where footnote was placed. It states that:
1) Offer applies for online completion of a T-Mobile contract in the tariff web'n'walk Connect L with a minimum contract of 24 months. The availability of price 24.95 € omitted for online ordering. The basic monthly amount of 39.95 € omitted for online ordering for 2 months. The T-Mobile web'n'walk Stick with Acer Aspire One is A150X advantage of online excluded. Applies only in domestic volume with unlimited usage for packet data traffic in mobile network of T-Mobile Germany. From a data volume of 5 GB per month is the bandwidth in each month at Max 64 kbit / s (download) and 16 kbit / s (upload) is limited. The use of VoIP, instant messaging and peer-to-peer traffic is excluded. The flat rate can not be used for WLAN and not for traffic on the BlackBerry APN used. Not in conjunction with Multisim booked. A resale as well as free transfer of the service to third parties is inadmissible. T-Mobile reserves the right, after 24 clock one automatic separation of the connection to implement. The offer is limited until 31.12.2008
So after 5 GB, they start bandwidth capping you. Interesting that they say they don't allow VoIP and IM too. The "not to be used for WLAN", I'm not sure what they means, but I'm interpreting it to mean you use the plan for router type applications.
This is what I mean by being sure. An iTunes user or an Internet movie/video watcher can break 5 GB quite easily, but it's fine for virtually all mobile uses. Not so much for broadband type access, but most mobile-based broadband usage is all for business usage with lower data demand, and probably ok. And 40 Euro is just as expensive if not more so that USA mobile broadband plans.
There is also a 25 Euro plan (web'n'walk M), but it is limited to 300 MB data, and they start charging you 0.50 Euro/MB afterwards.
The 384/512 are guaranteed in all cases but the usual is 7.2 mb/s in most circumstances.
You actually get 7.2 Mbit/sec on your modem or your phone? Really?
http://www.mobiletracker.net/archive...0/nokia-ceo-us
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/...ket/2006-11-30
So, as I said, Nokia did not try as hard as they could. Time will tell if they are really serious about it, but in my opinion, why bother. The US market is too fragmented and many of the phones that Nokia produces probably will not appeal to US consumers anyway.
The articles are short enough to show here. From the mobiletracker.net link:
Nokia's new CEO serious about US market
Aug 10 2006 - 03:11 PM ET | Nokia
Nokia's US marketshare may be tumbling in the US, but the company's new CEO isn't settling to be a distant player. Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo took the reigns over in June and has announced plans to spend one week per month in the US. That's significant considering the US only makes up 8.3% of Nokia's revenue.
Worldwide Nokia is the top mobile phone manufacturer, but Motorola dominates in the US market. Analysts blame Nokia's late adoption of the clamshell form factor as one of the leading causes. Its failed CDMA play also has contributed, half the US isn't even a potential customer.
Some changes are expected to be made, including an increased emphasis on design and style.
And, the company plans to launch slimmer handsets over the coming months to better compete with Motorola's hit RAZR phones. "We are making very good progress in getting thinner," says Mr. Kallasvuo. But, he adds, "we are not there as of yet."
And from the fiercewireless.com link:
Nokia: We over invested in the U.S. market
November 29, 2006 ? 8:01pm ET
Nokia chief Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo said his company has "over invested" in R&D in the U.S. market, and instead will pursue an incremental strategy of expanding its portfolio in the market rather than looking for the silver bullet in the mid-priced handset range. The U.S. market represents less than 10 percent of Nokia's annual global shipments, and Nokia never gained a foothold in the U.S. CDMA market, which it bowed out of earlier this year. Kallusvuo said there was "no magic bullet" that would help Nokia gain more market share, only that the task required "hard work and more hard work." Of the four slim phones the world's largest handset maker introduced yesterday, only one might work in the U.S. on T-Mobile's network. The Nokia 6086 is a mass-market UMA phone that supports quad-band GSM, but it looks like T-Mobile will have to heavily subsidize it to make it appeal to the mass market.
This reads like failure to me, even in your parlance of not trying as hard as they could. The CEO spending one week a month in the USA sends like trying pretty hard to me. I doubt he actually did it as world demands on his time would be great. Perhaps it was on they were only intending to try hard.
As far as the Nokia portfolio not being attractive to the American market, I would hazard a guess that, yes, they do have phones that Americans would like (N-series, E-series, various other phone series). Who knows why they only offer subsidized crap here.
I don't think so. Going without is not an option anymore. Cellphones are a pervasive part of life and needed, but you can cut back on usage and services and still make a substancial impact on the bottom line.
Cutting back on services may work, such as not buying a SMS text plan, not buying a data plan, etc. However, like I said, most of us are on 12/24 month contracts, and once you sign onto the plans, the carriers get money regardless of how much we use the network. It may even save them money (increase profit margin) if we don't stress the network.
Yes, but it is important to not to confuse UK/Ireland with the rest of Europe
Well, I did look at T-Mobile Germany, and the data costs, term & conditions, and usage limitations don't seem all that different to USA carriers. The more I dig, the less impressed I get.
Fri Oct 3, 2008 1:34pm EDT
LONDON (Reuters) - Nokia's answer to Apple's iPhone will go on sale in seven countries in Asia, the Middle East and Europe this year but will miss the Christmas shopping season in most developed markets.
The first touch-screen phone from the world's top mobile phone maker will go on sale in India, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Russia and Spain by year-end.
The Nokia 5800 will cost 279 euros ($387) before operator subsidies and taxes, substantially less than the iPhone.
"The phone is competitively priced and Nokia's competitive advantage is in emerging markets. When putting two and two together it's logical they start the roll-out from emerging markets," said analyst Neil Mawston from Strategy Analytics.
The research firm expects Nokia to ship more than 10 million touch-screen phones next year.
Um, weird set of countries to start out. Seems random? Probably other parts of Europe in Q1 09 and more in Q2 09. Who knows about the USA. Anyways, must be an interesting coincidence with the 10 million unit prediction.
Also, like was said last year when CWM was announced, there's been some friction between Nokia and the Operators. Looks like those wheels have yet to be greased:
Setback for Nokia music service
By Andrew Parker and Rob Minto in London
Published: October 2 2008 23:15 | Last updated: October 2 2008 23:15
Nokia faces a setback at the global launch of its music service in the UK this month because the country’s big four mobile operators do not plan to sell it.
Vodafone, O2 , Orange and T-Mobile are not expecting to use their high street stores to offer Nokia’s handsets featuring its unlimited music download service in the run-up to Christmas.
That would be a setback for Nokia, the biggest mobile handset maker, which is beginning an ambitious strategy of putting services such as music on to phones. It also underlines tensions between Nokia and the operators.
Nokia’s Comes With Music service had a global launch party in London on Thursday.
Two Nokia handsets featuring the service, which offers consumers the ability to download as much music as they want over a 12 or 18 month subscription period, go on sale on October 16 in the UK.
However, Nokia’s long-awaited 5800 mobile, its first touchscreen smartphone, is not one of the two launch models for the service because it will not go on sale in the UK until next year.
Wonder how much of the music revenue pie the Operators are asking for from Nokia, if indeed that is the friction? Also ironic is that CWM uses MS PlaysForSure DRM!
And there is no cap on the data transfers. The only limit is that it's not allowed to be used for P2P filesharing. As for Voice, no monthly fee, 0.069 euro Cents per minute. If I want cheaper calls, I can take a separate voice package (not tethered to my data package) and tailor it with a fixed monthly fee and lower phone calls.
And yes, the 7.2Mbps (theoretical, 5.something practical) someone discussed here is a reality here in Europe. Faster speeds wait for terminals that support more than 10 codes.
As to why Nokia is not doing very well in the US? That has many factors in it. Many have already been mentioned, but one big factor is the operator control in the US on what mobiles get put in the market. The operators dictate what phones get to the market and if the manufacturer doesn't bend over and drop it when the operator wants, the vendor is not let in.
The iPhone garners a lot of interest, but the expensive lock-in for the iPhone is a very much limiting factor at least here. This is why other phones garner more interest (apart from many features that the iPhone _currently_ misses). My wife or my parents for example couldn't care less that the phone is "sexy". That doesn't mean that I don't expect the iPhone's market share to rise in Europe. After all, when you start from zero in most markets, the only way is up.
Regs, Jarkko
And yes, the 7.2Mbps (theoretical, 5.something practical) someone discussed here is a reality here in Europe. Faster speeds wait for terminals that support more than 10 codes.
Yes, Europe has 7.2 Mbit/s HSDPA networks. But obviously no one gets 7.2 Mbit/s. At best, real world conditions are 40% to 50% of the theoretical number due to overhead. It gets even lower if the tower has a lot of users.
The iPhone garners a lot of interest, but the expensive lock-in for the iPhone is a very much limiting factor at least here. This is why other phones garner more interest (apart from many features that the iPhone _currently_ misses). My wife or my parents for example couldn't care less that the phone is "sexy". That doesn't mean that I don't expect the iPhone's market share to rise in Europe. After all, when you start from zero in most markets, the only way is up.
Yup, price is by far the dominant factor in many products' sales.
With that said, I'm with most in agreement that not all touchscreens and UI's are created equal. The apple UI is IMHO one of the best I've tried. Though I have yet to try the Nokia, it is not making the best impression on me with single touch and stylus mentions...
And who knows how thick and chunky the Nokia will be!? A lot of the iPhone's charm is looks and sleekness.
Then again, we are a bias bunch here...
Actually the real life values can easily be significantly higher than 40%-50%. Current terminals use 5 codes (theoretical 3.6Mbps, practical in cities 2.4-2.7Mbps) or 10 codes (7.2Mbps). With 15 code phones (Note, the networks often support this already if they have 7.2Mbps), the theoretical goes to over 10Mbps and in simulated lab scenarios (as in not optimal radio), the speeds are well over 7Mbps.
And yes, that's shared bandwidth if all 15 available codes are in use in the terminals (none available yet).
But that's quite a ways off topic.
Regs, Jarkko
Actually the real life values can easily be significantly higher than 40%-50%. Current terminals use 5 codes (theoretical 3.6Mbps, practical in cities 2.4-2.7Mbps) or 10 codes (7.2Mbps). With 15 code phones (Note, the networks often support this already if they have 7.2Mbps), the theoretical goes to over 10Mbps and in simulated lab scenarios (as in not optimal radio), the speeds are well over 7Mbps.
And yes, that's shared bandwidth if all 15 available codes are in use in the terminals (none available yet).
Not sure I trust some of the real world numbers out there. Wired's iPhone bandwidth survey had some rather unbelievable numbers for a supposed 3.6 Mbit/s baseband hardware. Many of them ranged from 3 Mbit/s to 7 Mbit/s. If it is really 3.6 Mbit/s hardware, the bandwidth test sample sizes must have been very small, introducing some unrealistic results. Around 40% is typically good rule of thumb for bandwidth under normal conditions. There's maybe a superlow overhead streaming transfer that can get higher, but I imagine those are few and quite ideal conditions. I can probably buy 60% there.
Sure it's shared bandwidth, but if the tower is "full", you're sharing the bandwidth among honking amount of users, and the tower only has so much bandwidth to the routing station (whatever it is called) it is connected to. This is one of the reasons why AT&T and iPhone 3G haven't been a great combination: they couldn't handle the initial surge of traffic at launch and are barely handling it afterward. Too many iPhones demanding data. I really don't think any network is prepared for the bandwidth demands if iPhone-like phones are one the most popular phones on the network. The operators would have overinvested in their networks if they built so much capability into 3G networks, otherwise.
Not sure I trust some of the real world numbers out there. Wired's iPhone bandwidth survey had some rather unbelievable numbers for a supposed 3.6 Mbit/s baseband hardware. Many of them ranged from 3 Mbit/s to 7 Mbit/s. If it is really 3.6 Mbit/s hardware, the bandwidth test sample sizes must have been very small, introducing some unrealistic results. Around 40% is typically good rule of thumb for bandwidth under normal conditions. There's maybe a superlow overhead streaming transfer that can get higher, but I imagine those are few and quite ideal conditions. I can probably buy 60% there.
Those 2.something Mbps figures was achieved after a work day in the middle of Stockholm about a year ago on a thursday evening with 3.6Mbps HW. Measured by real life downloads from the internet sitting in a hotel room with three bars out of five for coverage. This was after the operator experienced huge increases in their usage of their network. Believe me: I was probably more surprised than you are suspicious when I saw it with my own eyes.
The Base station can nowadays (if the operator has done the SW upgrade) handle 15 codes per cell. One 3.6 Mbps HW phone does 5 codes. So basically (theoretically) three 3.6Mbps phones/cell blasting at full capacity is easy. The throughput per phone naturally depends on the radio conditions, but in cities the radio conditions are generally good. And remember that web surfing is bursty so a cell in reality can handle more users with good "user experience" as long as transmission from the site is done properly.
Sure it's shared bandwidth, but if the tower is "full", you're sharing the bandwidth among honking amount of users, and the tower only has so much bandwidth to the routing station (whatever it is called) it is connected to. ... The operators would have overinvested in their networks if they built so much capability into 3G networks, otherwise.
Yep. Totally agree that in many cases they've underinvested. But then again not all operators use E1/T1s to all sites. Some sites have ATM (OC-3/STM-1) shared with several Base Stations and this gives more headroom.
So currently your experience will vary from operator to operator based on their transmission capacities towards the fixed nets (at least on this side of the pond). But to say that in Europe, the networks may be 7.2Mbps, but you'll never achieve multiMbps download speeds in real life is just plain wrong.
To bring the iPhone back to the thread: basically the iPhone needs to do HSDPA well with low power consuption if it wants to retain it's image of good end-user experience (don't want to be recharging several times a day).
Those 2.something Mbps figures was achieved after a work day in the middle of Stockholm about a year ago on a thursday evening with 3.6Mbps HW. Measured by real life downloads from the internet sitting in a hotel room with three bars out of five for coverage. This was after the operator experienced huge increases in their usage of their network. Believe me: I was probably more surprised than you are suspicious when I saw it with my own eyes.
The Base station can nowadays (if the operator has done the SW upgrade) handle 15 codes per cell. One 3.6 Mbps HW phone does 5 codes. So basically (theoretically) three 3.6Mbps phones/cell blasting at full capacity is easy. The throughput per phone naturally depends on the radio conditions, but in cities the radio conditions are generally good. And remember that web surfing is bursty so a cell in reality can handle more users with good "user experience" as long as transmission from the site is done properly.
Yep. Totally agree that in many cases they've underinvested. But then again not all operators use E1/T1s to all sites. Some sites have ATM (OC-3/STM-1) shared with several Base Stations and this gives more headroom.
So currently your experience will vary from operator to operator based on their transmission capacities towards the fixed nets (at least on this side of the pond). But to say that in Europe, the networks may be 7.2Mbps, but you'll never achieve multiMbps download speeds in real life is just plain wrong.
To bring the iPhone back to the thread: basically the iPhone needs to do HSDPA well with low power consuption if it wants to retain it's image of good end-user experience (don't want to be recharging several times a day).
Terve Jarko,
Good luck trying to convince some in this thread of anything. Unless it personally happens to them, all other data and info is invalid. You are correct about the data speeds though. When I am passing though Helsinki, I will use either DNA or Sonera (or company dumped Elisa as they are not very good) for all of my mobile data needs. In Germany I tend to use Vodafone, and surprisingly E-Plus. 7.2 mb/s data rates are close but theoretical in nature. You would probably have to stand under a tower to get it for the most part I get close to what is advertised. The problem with AT&T is that they have a crappy network, run by crappy managers. They need to build in more capacity and stop with the blame disperal.
So currently your experience will vary from operator to operator based on their transmission capacities towards the fixed nets (at least on this side of the pond). But to say that in Europe, the networks may be 7.2Mbps, but you'll never achieve multiMbps download speeds in real life is just plain wrong.
I don't think I implied or said that you don't get multiMbps download speeds. I was trying to say you never get the theoretical bandwidth number and that it is likely you only 40% of theoretical. That you were surprised in getting more than that is comforting to me that the rule of thumb works. For some users in Europe, they are probably capped at some 20% number or even lower depending how busy the area is, so many people may think they are getting the full "3.6 Mbit/s or 7.2 Mbit/s" aren't even getting close to what they think or paying for, and don't even realize it.
To bring the iPhone back to the thread: basically the iPhone needs to do HSDPA well with low power consuption if it wants to retain it's image of good end-user experience (don't want to be recharging several times a day).
Recharging several time a day? That's got to be a corner case usage that Apple simply doesn't care to cater to. They are trying to get about 5 hours of data usage or talk time, which I think they get reasonably within. For those who are on the phone (talking and/or browsing) all day, Apple is ok with losing a sale there.
I don't think I implied or said that you don't get multiMbps download speeds. I was trying to say you never get the theoretical bandwidth number and that it is likely you only 40% of theoretical. That you were surprised in getting more than that is comforting to me that the rule of thumb works. For some users in Europe, they are probably capped at some 20% number or even lower depending how busy the area is, so many people may think they are getting the full "3.6 Mbit/s or 7.2 Mbit/s" aren't even getting close to what they think or paying for, and don't even realize it.
Your original quote:
Not sure I trust some of the real world numbers out there. Wired's iPhone bandwidth survey had some rather unbelievable numbers for a supposed 3.6 Mbit/s baseband hardware. Many of them ranged from 3 Mbit/s to 7 Mbit/s. If it is really 3.6 Mbit/s hardware, the bandwidth test sample sizes must have been very small, introducing some unrealistic results. Around 40% is typically good rule of thumb for bandwidth under normal conditions. There's maybe a superlow overhead streaming transfer that can get higher, but I imagine those are few and quite ideal conditions. I can probably buy 60% there.
It sounds as though you implied it even if you did not say it explicitly. Multiple Mbps speeds are quite common, especially for people willing to purchase QoS as part of these plans, besides being easy to prove with all the various speed testing applications avail. Operators would get sued back to the stone age if they were caught shorting on bandwidth but collecting service fees for higher bandwidths. You also list percentages: 40%, 20%, as quotes but you do not provide any data to back this up other than T-Mobile. Could it be concluded that these are just guesses on your part?
Your original quote:
Not sure I trust some of the real world numbers out there. Wired's iPhone bandwidth survey had some rather unbelievable numbers for a supposed 3.6 Mbit/s baseband hardware. Many of them ranged from 3 Mbit/s to 7 Mbit/s. If it is really 3.6 Mbit/s hardware, the bandwidth test sample sizes must have been very small, introducing some unrealistic results. Around 40% is typically good rule of thumb for bandwidth under normal conditions. There's maybe a superlow overhead streaming transfer that can get higher, but I imagine those are few and quite ideal conditions. I can probably buy 60% there.
It sounds as though you implied it even if you did not say it explicitly. Multiple Mbps speeds are quite common, especially for people willing to purchase QoS as part of these plans, besides being easy to prove with all the various speed testing applications avail. Operators would get sued back to the stone age if they were caught shorting on bandwidth but collecting service fees for higher bandwidths. You also list percentages: 40%, 20%, as quotes but you do not provide any data to back this up other than T-Mobile. Could it be concluded that these are just guesses on your part?
If you mulitply 40% with 3.6 MBit/s, 0.40*3.6 = 1.44 Mbit/s. For 60%, 0.60*3.6 = 2.16 MBit/s. That's multi-megabit/s to me.
Yes, they are guesses, but they are rule of thumb guesses. When you say rule of thumb, it's based on my knowledge of how networking works. There's a lot of overhead (information about what to transfer, how to transfer, recognition of a commands) that have to be transferred, and you won't get close to the theoretical numbers. For wired networks or buses on logic boards, 80% is a good rule of thumb. A wireless network can achieve that, but that's some pretty ideal conditions. Wireless networks have a humungous amount of things to overcome to get a great connection. I think 40% is a good number to use and for what to expect for data performance.
The 20% number was for a bandwidth capped number, a fairly common practice among operators. Obviously there are situations where people get even less than that (10%, 5%) due to various things effecting the signal quality like buildings, anything with lots of metal, issues at the tower, lots of users, lots of solar radiation, the phones themselves, tower synchronization, etc.
Why don't you ask Jarkko if 80% of the theoretical bandwidth a common number? I wouldn't expect that all of the time.
I don't think I implied or said that you don't get multiMbps download speeds. I was trying to say you never get the theoretical bandwidth number and that it is likely you only 40% of theoretical. That you were surprised in getting more than that is comforting to me that the rule of thumb works. For some users in Europe, they are probably capped at some 20% number or even lower depending how busy the area is, so many people may think they are getting the full "3.6 Mbit/s or 7.2 Mbit/s" aren't even getting close to what they think or paying for, and don't even realize it.
A 20% cap on bandwidth would make no sense and if you purchased say a 2Mbps subscription and customers would revolt. But congestion situations are naturally possible and very much increasing due to increased uptake of high bandwidth services due to the (finally) spreading reasonable pricing models over here for data access, availability of USB modems. Maybe the iPhone and clones will eventually have that effect here as well.
I've been training HSDPA (with real equipment) for a while now and the overheads are not the reason you get bad bitrates (heard a reliable report of well over 8Mbps on a 10.7 cell and I get consistently 2.5+Mbps on a 3.6). Bad bitrates are either due to bad radio conditions, congestion in the cell or limitations on transmission (which I've been told is the case in AT&T?). In other words bad network planning.
But those are in good radio conditions. The reason I was originally surprised in stockholm was that I got that in a not-so-good radio environment (3 out of 5 bars). Your 40-60% rule of thumb is not a bad rule and yes, in bad conditions (bad radio + congestion) even lower values are naturally possible. The question I guess is what is the average situation in Europe vs. US. I don't believe we can answer that question very easily without proper surveys. You've now heard the experience of two user's. That's not a very representative take.
Regs, Jarkko
And sorry if I blamed you for something you didn't say. It's was the impression I got and I should have been a bit more careful.
Regs, Jarkko