3G is absolute rubbish

Iam3G said:
I did your test just for interest sake, and this is what i got:

Code: 
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Garth>ping www.google.co.za

Pinging www.l.google.com [66.249.91.103] with 32 bytes of data:

[B]Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=32 time=429ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=32 time=398ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=32 time=386ms TTL=242
Request timed out.[/B] - [I]pinged while on R99[/I]

Ping statistics for 66.249.91.103:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 386ms, Maximum = 429ms, Average = 404ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Garth>ping www.google.co.za

Pinging www.l.google.com [66.249.91.103] with 32 bytes of data:

[B]Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=32 time=406ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=32 time=405ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=32 time=393ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=32 time=393ms TTL=242[/B] - [I]Still on R99[/I]

Ping statistics for 66.249.91.103:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 393ms, Maximum = 406ms, Average = 399ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Garth>ping www.google.co.za

Pinging www.l.google.com [66.249.91.103] with 32 bytes of data:

[B]Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=32 time=403ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=32 time=408ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=32 time=397ms TTL=242
Request timed out.[/B] - [I]Still on R99[/I]

Ping statistics for 66.249.91.103:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 397ms, Maximum = 408ms, Average = 402ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Garth>

I did this while the light was still blue, got 2 time out requests. Say like 10 - 15 Seconds after i did those pings did the light go Cyan.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I actually expected it to first come out of R99 but you showed it can actually ping in R99. I need to dig up my E220 and test as well.

Can you retry with a ping packet size of 1500 bytes?
 
vodacom3g said:
Thanks, I actually expected it to first come out of R99 but you showed it can actually ping in R99. I need to dig up my E220 and test as well.

Can you retry with a ping packet size of 1500 bytes?
Click to expand...

Command for that please?
 
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\users\M>ping www.google.co.za

Pinging www.l.google.com [66.249.91.104] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 66.249.91.104: bytes=32 time=618ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.104: bytes=32 time=388ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.104: bytes=32 time=608ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.104: bytes=32 time=648ms TTL=242

Ping statistics for 66.249.91.104:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 388ms, Maximum = 648ms, Average = 565ms

C:\users\M>ping www.google.co.za

Pinging www.l.google.com [66.249.91.104] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 66.249.91.104: bytes=32 time=400ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.104: bytes=32 time=1328ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.104: bytes=32 time=359ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.104: bytes=32 time=278ms TTL=242

Ping statistics for 66.249.91.104:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 278ms, Maximum = 1328ms, Average = 591ms

C:\users\M>ping www.google.co.za

Pinging www.l.google.com [66.249.91.103] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=32 time=648ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=32 time=657ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=32 time=717ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=32 time=546ms TTL=242

Ping statistics for 66.249.91.103:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 546ms, Maximum = 717ms, Average = 642ms

C:\users\M>

1st try was with cyan light burning, 2nd and 3rd the dark blue light (R99) stayed dark blue. Not quite sure what it means...
 
Here's the test with the ping of 1500 bytes:

Code: 
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Garth>ping www.google.co.za -l 1500

Pinging www.l.google.com [66.249.91.103] with 1500 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 66.249.91.103:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

C:\Documents and Settings\Garth>ping www.google.co.za -l 1500

Pinging www.l.google.com [66.249.91.103] with 1500 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 66.249.91.103:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

C:\Documents and Settings\Garth>

What happened here was i pinged www.google.co.za with Cyan light, request timed out.

Waited for it to go R99, request still times out, but comes out of R99 to HSDPA in less than a second.
 
Iam3G said:
Here's the test with the ping of 1500 bytes:

Code: 
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Garth>ping www.google.co.za -l 1500

Pinging www.l.google.com [66.249.91.103] with 1500 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 66.249.91.103:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

C:\Documents and Settings\Garth>ping www.google.co.za -l 1500

Pinging www.l.google.com [66.249.91.103] with 1500 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 66.249.91.103:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

C:\Documents and Settings\Garth>

What happened here was i pinged www.google.co.za with Cyan light, request timed out.

Waited for it to go R99, request still times out, but comes out of R99 to HSDPA in less than a second.
Click to expand...

Tx, maybe repeat it a few times but let it go into idle every time before you start. I've asked the clever guys for the proper story but I suspect a normal ping might not generate enough data to switch it into HS.

Also try a smaller packet size, maybe 1024 or 512.
 
Ping with 1024 bytes:

Code: 
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Garth>ping www.google.co.za -l 1024

Pinging www.l.google.com [66.249.91.103] with 1024 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=56 (sent 1024) time=416ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=56 (sent 1024) time=424ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=56 (sent 1024) time=443ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=56 (sent 1024) time=412ms TTL=242

Ping statistics for 66.249.91.103:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 412ms, Maximum = 443ms, Average = 423ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Garth>ping www.google.co.za -l 1024

Pinging www.l.google.com [66.249.91.103] with 1024 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=56 (sent 1024) time=396ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=56 (sent 1024) time=395ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=56 (sent 1024) time=404ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=56 (sent 1024) time=403ms TTL=242

Ping statistics for 66.249.91.103:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 395ms, Maximum = 404ms, Average = 399ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Garth>ping www.google.co.za -l 1024

Pinging www.l.google.com [66.249.91.103] with 1024 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=56 (sent 1024) time=1393ms TTL=242
Request timed out.
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=56 (sent 1024) time=384ms TTL=242
Reply from 66.249.91.103: bytes=56 (sent 1024) time=512ms TTL=242

Ping statistics for 66.249.91.103:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 384ms, Maximum = 1393ms, Average = 763ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Garth>

Came out of R99 instantly.
 
Did another test. Ping with 1500 bytes of data. Request times out. Waited for R99, pinged again 1500 bytes of Data. Came out of R99 instantly but request times out. Waited for R99 again, pinged with 1024 bytes, comes out of R99 instantly and ping is successful.
 
Not to stick one to the "Man" here but to show how long this issue has been goin. I dug up some old posts in the slow throughput issue and found this same problem has been going on since last year july and has yet to be properly resolved.

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=1113764#post1113764 (July-07)

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=69209&page=77 (August-07)

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=69209&page=167 (Feb-08)

U can actually get even more posts from that thread and u will find this same issue cropping up.

The point is the same sort of problems are still occurring and its over a year later, with no sign of it ever being resolved...
 
Bedford said:
Not to stick one to the "Man" here but to show how long this issue has been goin. I dug up some old posts in the slow throughput issue and found this same problem has been going on since last year july and has yet to be properly resolved.

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=1113764#post1113764 (July-07)

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=69209&page=77 (August-07)

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=69209&page=167 (Feb-08)

U can actually get even more posts from that thread and u will find this same issue cropping up.

The point is the same sort of problems are still occurring and its over a year later, with no sign of it ever being resolved...
Click to expand...

With a few million people using a wireless service, I'm 100% sure there will always be problems. Things like slow throughput, disconnects, latency, etc. will always pop up. It's just inherent in a wireless technology.

It's a bit like a multi-headed monster, the moment you cut one head off, another is bound to pop up somewhere else.

Managing this is thus a combination of fixing (as best as possible) specific issues, areas, etc. while ensuring no 'generic' problems exist. Unfortunately certain generic limitations DO exist, such as inability to build towers, bandwidth availability, etc.

But that does not mean we should not try and fix every problem as they pop up.
 
But why continue to sign ppl up when there is way to many ppl on the network? It just seems like Vodacom will never keep up and forever be chasing that carrot on a stick.
 
I have found the E220 sleeping issue to be annoying too, and the Huawei Mobile Connect, Autopage Partner, and VMC software to be a bit erratic.

I've had good success with MDMA, but probably because it suits me as a techie.

Pings appear to keep the modem from roaming/switching. Only hassle is it eats data, so I've resorted to two pings, then 5 second sleeps. Other than that, I must say the HSDPA performs pretty decently, even had great coverage out in the stix when on holiday.
 
TheRoDent said:
I have found the E220 sleeping issue to be annoying too, and the Huawei Mobile Connect, Autopage Partner, and VMC software to be a bit erratic.

I've had good success with MDMA, but probably because it suits me as a techie.

Pings appear to keep the modem from roaming/switching. Only hassle is it eats data, so I've resorted to two pings, then 5 second sleeps. Other than that, I must say the HSDPA performs pretty decently, even had great coverage out in the stix when on holiday.
Click to expand...

CAn you play with the ping size and let me know at what point you see a difference in the speed it switches?

Can you also try 1.5K? I'm worried about Iam3G's timeouts on 1500 bytes.
 
vodacom3g said:
How many ppl are on the network and how should there be?

I don't quite follow your point?
Click to expand...

V3G this isnt a gripe against u. U are 1 of the few that have gone out their way to lend a hand to the community. I had a techie out here at my place who admitted that VC has to many users on its data network than it can cope with. So if anything it was more of a rant, I doubt VC would stop signing ppl up its bad for business.

Let me put my rant this way, in the near 2 years that ive had the card Ive had more problems with it then actually use and thats disheartening
 
Ha ha ha ic. Extremely true. If you live in Constantia forget about 3G altogether. Bedford the E172 works very well. Was also using the E220 before, plenty headaches but it's all working perfectly since my upgrade. So I don't think it's the network to blame. Also E220 was one of the first USB type modems Vodacom ever brought out, it's natural to expect a few teething problems with anything new. Remember the first dial up modem? The first cellphone? Technology learns from it's mistakes. There are plenty of fantastic products available now that replace the E220. E172, E272, Novatel USB stick, and they work well.
 
our work connection of Telkom 386 shared between 4 ppl is much faster than my 7.2 E272 on 4/5 bars..

oh well...just waiting for neotel..
 
Bedford said:
V3G this isnt a gripe against u. U are 1 of the few that have gone out their way to lend a hand to the community. I had a techie out here at my place who admitted that VC has to many users on its data network than it can cope with. So if anything it was more of a rant, I doubt VC would stop signing ppl up its bad for business.

Let me put my rant this way, in the near 2 years that ive had the card Ive had more problems with it then actually use and thats disheartening
Click to expand...

I understand. And I also understand your frustration. While my statement that the network works better than not for most people, you only care (and should) about your own environment.

Have we had people out at your place before?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X